Originally Posted by
RichardKenner
Moreover, I don't agree that "NMSA 30-22-3 makes it a crime in NM to refuse to identify oneself with intent to hinder or interrupt a public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty". That statute makes concealing one's identity a crime. "Conceal" is an active verb and requires taking some action to hide one's identity. I'd be interested in seeing how the courts have interpreted this statute, but in plain English, if you leave your glasses on my table and I don't touch them but decide not to answer your question of "where are my glasses", I haven't "concealed" (hidden) them.
Absolutely. I don't see the officer had a duty in this case (although he may have thought he did). Phil had done nothing wrong, other than annoy an ignorant TSA stooge that didn't understand his own rules. No duty, nothing to obstruct. Regardless, I don't see how phil obstructed anything. He was complying with the rules for both the ID and video processes. If the officer was investigating, he had sufficient information to figure out what happened and had Phil's name. Im wondering if the officer asked for the papers of the TSA person? If he was conducting an investigation, the rules should apply equally to both parties. If he was only providing the lock-step intimidation role for TSA, then Phil would be under no obligation to cooperate. It seems to me the LEO was (incorrectly) enforcing the TSA process, not investigating anything.