Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
Mr. Phil's case has grabbed my attention and guess what I find reading through the first few pages of posts here on FT. None other than someone throwing an insult my way from a post over a year ago regarding policies at BNA. Seriously? let it goooo....If you think I'm an "iron fist," feel free to contact me by PM next time you're through BNA and we'll have a chat.
Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
Not that I think there is a big issue with photography, but since the checkpoints are located in an airport, which is private property, ceasing to take photographs when told can cause you to be removed from the airport, whether you are attempting to fly or not.
Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
Again...time, place, and business doing there. I will find out why. Whether a private photographer or the Channel 4 News, permission is required in most cases. If the photographer does not want to cooperate (providing ID, reason there, etc), then he will be leaving. Refusal to leave will result in a possible arrest. If he is cooperative, not getting in the way, and is not taking pictures of the screening process, he's good to go. It's not that hard to understand, and in fact the website you provided mentions cooperation with law enforcement.
Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
No "laws" involved. Someone simply at the airport to take photos will be questioned. Refusal to cooperate as to their intentions will result in their removal of the airport. As I say refuse to cooperate and refuse to leave, you end up in jail. Challenge it in the courts if you are so sure of yourself.
Do you see some similarities with your thoughts on photography and how it appears the LEO reacted in ABQ?
Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
As far as your case Phil, I don't know the specific circumstances and I'm sure you can't elaborate, but many will be paying attention the court hearing coming up in Feb. I just hope the thousands of dollars being shelled out by you and others is worth it.
It looks like Phil is taking your advice of over a year ago and will "challenge it in the courts."
Originally Posted by
SgtScott31
Actually I'm surprised I haven't seen the recent cases here on FT where searches and subsequent arrests have been thrown out due to TSA overstepping the administrative search, or maybe I didn't go through enough of the threads.
I am sure many would be interested to know. If you would enlighten us, then perhaps we can inform you of whether they have been discussed.