Apologies for the delayed response, everyone. I must have missed e-mailed notice from FT of further action in this thread. It's wonderful to see other people reading the order and discussing my case.
Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
Link for the judges order not working for me.
Fixed. Thanks for catching that.
Originally Posted by
Mr. Elliott
from what I read of the short statement, the charges still stand against the ABQ police, what did the judge include in the dismissal of the federal charges that helps the police?
Very roughly: He said that the police officers' actions were warranted, so even if the involvement of TSA staff led directly to the police officers' actions, there was no violation. It's like, "Well, the cops didn't violate his rights, so the airport security guards are certainly not guilty of such violation for simply calling in the cops, and I'll grant their motion to dismiss."
Fredd got it:
Originally Posted by
Fredd
At times the reasoning appeared circular to me, but in fairness I suppose one step leads to the next.
- Mocek's rights to film are not "clearly established."
- By filming he thus "distracted" the TSA which is "creating a disturbance."
- The TSA thus were correct to call the police.
- The police were thus correct to conclude Mocek was creating a disturbance.
As did CZBB:
Originally Posted by
CZBB
I love this sentence from the article (bolding mine):
Browning’s opinion said the federal officers are entitled to dismissal because Mocek had not shown First Amendment violations when they ordered him to stop filming. The officers would be entitled to qualified immunity, anyway, Browning said, because the “alleged right to gather news at an airport screening checkpoint and to record police activity in public are not clearly established.”
I suppose that means they haven't read the Justice Dept's brief to the Baltimore Police, or perhaps the 1st circuit's decision on Glik.
Judge Browning cites
Glik in the order.
Originally Posted by
Fredd
I've read through it as best as I can. It almost appears as if the act of filming, which was a major factor in your exoneration on the criminal charges (do I have that right?) is making your civil case very problematical.
My recording made it very clear that Dilley and Wiggins lied, blatantly, in their incident reports and testimony. At trial, one of my lawyers repeated one of Dilley's false claims, started the video, and asked him to let us all know when we get to the part in the recording at which that happened. Of course, it played straight through to the end. If I remember correctly, we went through this several times. The guy is super-slick; an excellent liar. I'm almost positive the jury would have believed him if it weren't for the recording, which was the best evidence available.
For those who are unfamiliar or have forgotten: I presented no evidence at trial, called no witnesses, and did not testify. The prosecution entered my video as evidence.
Originally Posted by
Fredd
The judge seems to me to be saying it wasn't unreasonable of the TSA to call the police when you refused to stop filming, because nobody has yet established in a high court that you have a "right" to film there, and because you were "distracting" the TSA.
That's how I read it.
Originally Posted by
Fredd
Ergo, if the TSA tells you to stand "over there" and you say or do anything that they say "disturbs" them, or, as the judge synonymizes, "distracts" them, they have grounds to call the police, and the police in turn have grounds to suspect you, to demand i.d., and to arrest you.
Yep. Make up an unlawful policy that contradicts their own written policy, order someone to comply with this ad-hoc policy, bring over a half-dozen uniformed guards to gather around, call in the police, accuse the target of causing a disturbance, demand documentation of identity because of your criminal investigation of disturbing the peace, and arrest him for not providing it after he tells you he hasn't any to show you. It's pretty f...ed up.
Originally Posted by
Fredd
Last I checked, and I'm sure the lawyer types would agree, there can be a world of difference in 'identifying' oneself and being required to produce 'identification'.
Definitely. We're not required to
have documentation of identity, much less to carry it with us and present it upon demand. If you listen to my recording---which includes the entirety of my interaction with Dilley and Wiggins from the time they arrived until they detained me, started walking me to the jail cell, confiscated my camera, and powered it off---you'll never once hear anyone ask who I was, ask my name, or demand that I identify myself. Dilley repeatedly told me he needed to "see [my] ID" and that I was required to "give [them my] ID".
Here's a transcript of the relevant portion:
Code:
14:36:32 00:01:57 Delapena He don't want to show his I.D., either.
14:36:33 00:01:58 Wiggins Alright. [inaudible]
14:36:35 00:02:00 Dilley Let's go sir. You're leaving the airport.
14:36:37 00:02:02 You're being escorted out at this point.
14:36:39 00:02:04 Let's go.
14:36:40 00:02:05 Dilley And if you refuse, we'll arrest you.
14:36:41 00:02:06 Let's go.
14:36:44 00:02:09 Buster
14:36:45 00:02:10 Mocek I-- I don't understand.
14:36:46 00:02:11 Buster, you're in trouble.
14:36:47 00:02:12 Dilley Actually, I-- I'm gonna-- I'm gonna need your I.D. now.
14:36:51 00:02:16 Mocek I-- I don't have any I.D. to show you.
14:36:51 00:02:16 Dilley Now
14:36:53 00:02:18 Dilley Sir, or we're gonna arrest you for concealing identity.
14:36:56 00:02:21 He doesn't even have an I.D. with him.
14:36:57 00:02:22 Mocek Am I required to--
14:36:59 00:02:24 Dilley Yes. You are now part of an investigation, a criminal investigation. You are required to give us
your I.D.
14:37:05 00:02:30 Mocek What am I being investigated for?
14:37:06 00:02:31 Dilley For disturbing the peace.
14:37:08 00:02:33 Mocek I haven't disturbed the peace.
14:37:09 00:02:34 Dilley Yes you are. Yes.
14:37:10 00:02:35 Dilley I'm gonna need a statement from you guys.
14:37:12 00:02:37 Dilley You understand me sir?
14:37:14 00:02:39 Mocek I-- I don't.
14:37:14 00:02:39 Dilley I need your I.D.
14:37:16 00:02:41 Mocek I'm going to remai-- remain silent.
14:37:17 00:02:42 Dilley Alright, let's go.
14:37:18 00:02:43 Mocek I'd like to talk to an attorney.
14:37:18 00:02:43 Dilley We're go-- we're gonna end up arresting you. Come on, let's go.
14:37:22 00:02:47 Dilley We're gonna search your property, and if we find I.D. on you-- on your property, we will arrest you
for concealing I.D.
I don't know how any of those statements could be interpreted as requests or demands that I identify myself.
Originally Posted by
Wally Bird
Or the actual text of the NM statute viz:NB concealing. Since Mocek's name was clearly on his boarding pass and AFAIK he did not offer any other name, it's hard to see how Browning concludes this occurred. Or maybe not so hard.
Heh. Speaking of the boarding pass: On the police audio recordings (public record; this includes Wiggins' belt tape and the dispatch audio), while I'm sitting in the airport jail cell with Dilley concocting his story and Wiggins watching football on some pirate Internet sports site, you can hear Wiggins say he's going to go check with Southwest Airlines to find out if I checked any bags. He reports that I did not.
I just pulled up my transcript of it. I was going to quote that part, but I'll go back a bit further, since it's kind of interesting. Again, the audio from which I transcribed the following is all public record; I received the recordings via public records request, unrelated to my status as defendant, just as anyone could. This begins well after I've been arrested (it's unclear just when I was arrested, but I'm locked in a holding cell at this point):
Code:
14:44:34 00:05:55 Dilley Do you have a driver's license or anything in your stuff?
Mocek I'm gonna remain silent. I'd like to talk to an attorney.
14:44:41 00:06:02 Dilley Okay, well we're gonna have to look through your bag for you to see if you do have an I.D.
14:44:44 00:06:05 Mocek I don't consent to any search.
Dilley Huh?
Mocek I do not consent to any search.
Dilley [inaudible]
14:45:32 00:06:53 ? [inaudible]
14:46:06 00:07:27 ? [inaudible]
14:46:13 00:07:34 Rojas If he refuses to depart the area [inaudible] can charge him with criminal trespass, too. Ah...
14:46:26 00:07:47 Dilley He refused several times to leave.
Rojas Okay. [inaudible] Don't forget the 90-day barment letter.
14:46:26 00:07:47 Dilley Okay. He's probably going to be uh, 16. We might... Probably just end up arresting him, and do the
barment later on. It's up to you.
Rojas Okay. How about-- Yeah, well, we need to make sure that we do a 90-day letter on him.
Dilley Yeah. You bet.
Rojas [inaudible]
Dilley Alright.
14:46:52 00:08:13 Rojas Is that the only form of documentation he had in his possession?
14:46:52 00:08:13 Dilley No, we're gonna find out. He said that he doesn't want to give us any information.
14:46:59 00:08:20 Mocek I don't consent to any search.
14:47:04 00:08:25 Dilley [inaudible] have a seat.
14:47:07 00:08:28 Dilley You wanna-- you wanna identify who you are, sir?
14:46:59 00:08:20 Mocek I'd like to remain silent. I want to speak to an attorney.
Dilley You don't want to identify yourself? You can say yes or no on that. Okay. I assume your silence
says no. You're gonna be booked under John Doe. You will remain in jail until the FBI is able to
identify who you are.
14:47:31 00:08:52 Mocek Does the law require me to provide my--
14:47:33 00:08:54 Dilley Sir please don't talk. You asked-- You said you don't want to talk, and you leave it at that. We're
not going to answer any questions. We're not going to ask you any questions. Please do not talk any
further. We've given you a chance to talk.
14:48:16 00:09:37 Dilley Cannabis? Yeah...
14:48:41 00:10:02 Dilley In regards to booking [inaudible] they have to identify him through the FBI now.
14:49:22 00:10:43 Wiggins He must be a law student
Dilley Huh?
14:49:25 00:10:46 Wiggins Must be a law student.
Dilley Well, he's getting a first-hand experience right now.
Dilley Come here for a second so we can witness me counting this money. [inaudible]
Wiggins [inaudible] booking slip [inaudible]
14:50:18 00:11:39 Dilley Hang on a second. 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 20, 40, 60, 80, 200, 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.
Two hundred and ninety nine dollars inside his wallet. Lemme double-check to make sure there's not...
[inaudible] fifteen dollars
14:51:56 00:13:17 Dilley He's John Doe, we don't have to give him-- we don't have to give him anything back, actually.
14:52:06 00:13:27 Dilley I would've at least made up a name if I were in that situation. He's a law student, he should know
that. He's not even authorized to be flying because he doesn't [inaudible]
14:52:21 00:13:42 Dilley [inaudible] may find [inaudible]
14:53:05 00:14:26 Dilley Take a seat, sir. Have a seat, sir. No, sit on the bench, sir. Thank you.
14:53:45 00:15:06 Dilley [inaudible] enough to say
14:53:47 00:15:08 Wiggins [inaudible] ID [inaudible] driver's license? [inaudible]
Dilley No, not even that. He had a purpose to come here. It wasn't to fly.
Wiggins Mmm hmm.
Dilley 10, 116. (radio 14:54:15 +00:00:02)
Comm 110, go ahead. (radio 14:54:15 +00:00:05)
14:54:28 00:15:49 Dilley This individual has no I.D. with him. Ask TSA if he was presenting an I.D. to them and in their
statement, have them explain that, and have them, uh, describe how procedure is for allowing someone
to fly who does not have an I.D. please (radio 14:54:15 +00:00:10)
Comm 10-4. (radio 14:54:15 +00:00:35)
Comm Last unit calling, you can in extremely 10-1. (radio 14:56:09)
116, 110, 49 was relayed, so we'll put that in the statement. (radio 14:57:07)
Comm 10-4 (radio 14:58:01 +00:00:08)
14:55:08 00:16:29 Wiggins [inaudible]
Dilley Yeah, I just wanted to-- I wanna be, um...
14:55:26 00:16:47 You take all the [inaudible]?
Ah... Yeah
You might want to double-check it though,
14:56:03 00:17:24 Dilley You know, I'm all for somebody having their, their beliefs, but when you create a situation at the
checkpoint that causes a disturbance
14:56:51 00:18:12 Dilley [inaudible] Ibuprofin [inaudible]
14:57:31 00:18:52 ? [inaudible] yeah nasty .... [inaudible]
14:58:08 00:19:29 Dilley [inaudible] so we can't verify him [inaudible] John Doe [inaudible] He's gonna be [inaudible] for a
month, 'cause, uhm the feds won't release him 'cause they're under, uh, [inaudible]
14:58:26 00:19:47 Wiggins I'm gonna go out and talk to Southwest and see what's the deal with this. See if they presented. If
you need me to come back just give me a holler.
Dilley Okay.
15:02:02 00:23:23 Dilley [on phone] Hey girl. Give me a case number, please. Okay. It's alright. Yes. The, uh-- you need
the, um, nature of the call. Okay. 39, refusing to obey, and then, um, okay. Hang on a second.
[radio interruptions, completes call]
15:05:16 00:26:37 Wiggins They didn't check any bags, or didn't at check in with, uh, with Southwest.
Dilley [inaudible] probably [inaudible] this for now
I completely forgot! Sergeant Rojas actually referred to something he had, which was almost certainly my boarding pass, as a form of identification. These guys are
so dirty.
Dirty, dirty, cops are Albuquerque Aviation Police Officer Robert "Bobby" F. Dilley #116 and Officer Landra "Wiggy" Wiggins #137.