HawaiiTrvlr

Thanks for all your insights and comments. I really didn't want to be confrontational with my responses and that is why I was being vague with my answers. I don't think the police would have even approached me if they hadn't been instructed by the TSA. If, for some reason, I was detained and taken to an interview room I would have told them the exact reason why I was taking notes.

For what it is worth, the police at DEN are actual Denver Police Department officers since the airport is part of the city and county of Denver.

pmocek

I don't see declining to engage in a discussion with someone whose job is to build a case against you as going out of your way to alienate that person. Rather, it's just good sense.

When the Port of Seattle (Sea-Tac airport) police told me last week that I'm prohibited from photographing some part of the public area of the airport (something I'm almost certain is false), then refused to tell me what it was that they believed I was barred from photographing and said they'd rather determine who I was and why I was photographing, I saw the potential for a situation that would lead -- at best -- to me needing to identify myself and wait for them to go looking for reason to detain me further. Instead of engaging in any "friendly banter" (feeding them ammunition with which to escalate the situation to greater inconvenience for me), I asked if I was being detained, and upon finding that I was not, turned and walked away.

To look upon someone with suspicion because he is visibly noting that which thousands of people look upon every day is ridiculous.

You might be interested in the discussion that's happening in the "BNA Police Officer Threatens Arrest for Filming TSA Checkpoint, Confiscates Phone" thread, where we're waiting on a response from Bearcat06, who claims to have experience as an airport police officer:

Don't let your attorney hear you say that. If you're detained and under investigation, it's foolish to say anything besides, "I'm going to remain silent. I'd like to speak with an attorney." You're far more likely to talk yourself into arrest than out of it.

If these police officers lied to you as you claim they did, it would be very interesting to read their incident report. I hope you'll pursue acquiring it, and again, I'd be happy to help you do so.

bluenotesro

Oh, the absurdity! You can sit above the checkpoint all day long, make photos, take notes or just quietly observe out of sheer boredom.

But you can be on the floor doing the same????

What's the frickin' difference???????

CitizenTerrorist

Well, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this point.

Certainly, in the situation you were in (at ABQ) it absolutely pays to be both defensive and confrontational. And, to some extent I would also state that's true for your adventure at SEA. In the former case you were attempting to assert a right many would argue doesn't exist and I applaud you for it. In the latter case you were approached and accused (I assume).

But in the case of first contact with a police officer when you believe you are in the right I believe a concise, friendly, respectful answer is going to do you a lot more good than a terse, unfriendly answer or no answer at all.

Whether or not it's right, a police officer has some leeway in how they handle a situation and are expected to use their own judgement (something many people complain the TSA is lacking). How you react to the officer will often times determine how they use that leeway and judgement.

And in regard to taking photos at SEA, I'm about 98% sure that taking a photo of something in a public place isn't something you can be prosecuted (and as such arrested) for. But IANAL.

HawaiiTrvlr

Phil...thank your for offer. I just might take you up on it. I am going to see if I can get a copy of the incident report this week.

i read about the incident at BNA with interest. That is one reason why I didnt want to video tape any of what I saw or my interaction with the officers. It was bad enough that the officer thought I was in contact with someone (I had headphones on listening to iHeartradio on my cell phone).

I guess my only real concern out of this incident is if I will be on some targeted travel list. I can only assume that if the police is willing to send it to the FBI they would give it to the TSA as well. I fly on an overnight trip to the midwest on Tuesday and don't want/need the extra hassle. Maybe I just signed myself up for a lifetime of enhanced patdowns.

tusphotog

Enough beating around the bush...what did you find out? I fly to DEN soon. I need to know!

HawaiiTrvlr

This is what I wrote in a different thread:
So, here it is Sunday. The local station says that 172,000 will be flying from/thru DEN. Compared to Wednesday, today was just as easy to fly from DEN. I observed for approx 40 mins of both checkpoints in the main hall (south and Colorado Flag checkpoints). Here are a couple of those observations:
- 5 TDCs checking IDs at both checkpoints
- 9 lanes open for screening at the Southside point
- 8 lanes open for screening at the Colorado Flag point
- 1 of 4 NOS machines being used (Southside point)
- each checkpoint staffed with 45-50 TSA
- only watched 3 patdowns (all occured on the southside point); 2 older gentlemen and 1 eldery women. The women being patted down had the screener go inside the waistband but minimally
- One lady had water left in her water bottle; screener took the bottle and dumped the contents out and handed it back
- As compared to Wednesday, there were fewer screeners helping passengers with their bin contents
- Those that went through the NoS were given an additional patdown of pockets after coming out of the machine (assuming to resolve any anomolies)
- Teenage girl carried through what looked to be jam; screener swabbed it but handed it back; no additional patdown given.

Depending on when your trip but I wouldn't count on both large checkpoints to be open. I think it was rare for both to be open. Also, keep in mind that there is a 3rd checkpoint that is sometimes easier to navigate (leads to Concourse A). Both main checkpoints use the NoS and they are in the middle of all the lanes. If you want to avoid the NoS, go to the outside lanes (lanes 1 or 10 for both checkpoints).

pmocek

I suspect that we can agree that police often talk people into saying things that come back to bite those people, that many police officers react inappropriately to people standing up for their right not to be bothered by agents of our government when they haven't done anything wrong, and that we should not be punished by police for declining to speak with them when we're not required to do so.

You're being a realist, and I'm stubbornly refusing to cede authority where it doesn't exist.

Much as it bothers me that this would be the case, I suspect that it is. It may be human nature to lash back at someone who doesn't react as you'd like to your advances, but part of the job of a police officers is to set aside their urges and take stressful encounters in stride, without taking out their frustrations on the public.

Sure. But they don't have the leeway to detain you or to compel you to answer questions without justification. I'll typically avoid rolling the dice and decline to speak with them if I have the option (that's not to say I always abide by my own advice). It's somewhat frightening to annoy a cop by declining to engage in conversation when he'd like you to do so, but so is going to jail on "contempt of cop" charges, and you're highly unlikely to end up in the latter situation if you keep your trap shut.

As do I. I suspect all the TSA staff and police were simply trying to be intimidating. In the case of the police, it worked -- I very quickly decided that the longer I stuck around to talk to them, the more likely they'd be to make up a reason to arrest me, so I left promptly.

Thanks for the discussion.

Wally Bird

Have you read the Patriot Act ?No such thing when a police officer is involved.

pmocek

I think that's an exaggeration. For example, when I was at Sea-Tac Wednesday, for National Opt-out Day, one of the police came up to me to ask if I'd been briefed by the Port PR person about the "free speech zones" (my wording, not his or theirs) that had been set up for people who wanted to protest or whatever. I, of course, was not part of any such group, just an individual offering information to other people, and intentionally avoided the red-tape-delineated areas on principle. He was really nice about it, didn't even hint at telling me where to go, and seemed genuinely interested. He and I chatted with a passenger, I explained my thoughts about the tiny, tiny, risk of airplane bombings, gave him our literature (pointing out the part about TSA not being law enforcement) along with a copy of the IDP FAQ about my upcoming trial, shook hands, and went down to join others because the strip search machine was being fired up again.

He could have really had me fooled, but I don't think it was the case. It didn't quite start out as "friendly banter", but he wasn't fishing for trouble, and it ended a lot like friendly banter. I suspect that he had been asked to help keep the "protesters" at bay and out of the way of passengers, and while I wasn't where they planned for me to be, I clearly was being courteous and not getting in anyone's way.

Most police have difficult jobs, and most of them do their jobs well. That said, I'm not willing to cut them any slack when they abuse their power. They're dangerous -- they have the ability to single-handedly lock you up for a day or so just because you annoyed them, or for no reason at all -- and I think we should take any abuse on their part very seriously.

Mikey likes it

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but airport duty is a plum assignment for a cop.

GUWonder

One of whose "lists"?

So Thai authorities were the ones who arrested you? I doubt it was the US Secret Service doing such arrests on the streets of Thailand or on the US Embassy grounds. As to Thailand, it should be obvious by now that the Thai government still responds to US government orders of "Jump!" by asking "How high, sir!?!?!" and then doing as asked.

Bearcat06

Lots of Airports have their own PDs.....and some of us liked working there....

Bingo. I loved my time there and made more money working there than I did for a regular PD....More OT during the holidays.....

n4zhg

So how do you explain the cops at Philadelphia International Airport, who are now involved in two lawsuits involving putting fares in handcuffs for non-crimes and looking at a third for telling some woman's spouse that she's planning a divorce?

ETA @ 2100: All I hear are crickets.

RichardKenner

I think that oversimplifies things quite a bit. I certainly agree that there are cases when it's important that an LEO know "what the deal is" and that if they do, they're likely to treat you differently (the best example is if you've shot somebody in your house and you tell the LEO who responds "he broke into my house and threatened my wife and I with a gun"), but I always refer people to the famous YouTube video of the law professor about why you should never talk to law enforcement.

There's a serious problem with your statement #4: it admits certain actions that the person did. There's absolutely no reason to admit those things: they can only hurt.

I agree that giving #1, #2, or #3 as a first answer isn't the best way to proceed, but I would respond with something like "Officer, I'm sure you're aware there've been a lot of recent controvercies about checkpoint procedures" and stop there. There's then no problem in having a discussion about those controvercies, maybe even discuss your position, see if the officer wants to volunteer his or her position, etc., but I think that any direct question about what you were doing should be answered with something like "Officer, I've been taught that it's inappropriate for me to answer what I have or have no been doing without the permission of my attorney".