tom911

Perhaps some posts have been deleted or merged. Pretty common here on FT.

bdschobel

Kind of interesting that Dilley testified in uniform, but Breedon wore street clothes. I wonder if that has any significance.

Bruce

ehasbrouck

On the earlier scheduled trial date in December, multiple TSA staff members were present in uniform:

http://www.papersplease.org/wp/2010/...-december-9th/

My speculation would be that it was a tactical choice by the prosecution to have LTSO Breedon show up in mufti this time. Perhaps they realized that having him testify that he was not a law enforcement officer, while dressed like someone trying to impersonate such an officer, would only reduce his credibility.

techauthor

Just a short note to say well done on your post. ^^

Superguy

The Register picked up Phil's acquittal.

nrr

Unfortunately a single (jury) trial like this does not set a binding precedent on TSA. Even a Federal Appeals court decision would only be binding on TSA in that district--a Supreme Court decision would.

bdschobel

I'm watching Freedom Watch on Fox, and it looks like Phil was bumped again. The show ends in 15 minutes, and the first 45 were entirely on the State of the Union address. Quite frenetic! (I never saw the show before.)

Bruce

N830MH

I think you mentions where I am from PHX. What time the shows starts?

pmocek

Sorry for the lack of update on scheduling. Things have been moving quickly, and I was offline today between hotel checkout and train boarding.

There was no satellite studio available in Albuquerque today, so we were set to do a phone-in interview, but instead, I've arranged for a stop-over in San Francisco Friday, and I'll tape the interview at a FOX studio there for broadcast that evening.

When it was looking like a phone interview, they thought we could do it in 15 minutes. I don't know specifically what they want to talk about, but generally, they want to talk about my experience at ABQ and the trial.

juelzkellz

Hey Phil, do you have any plans on taking the screener(s) and cop(s) to civil court and getting a judgement from them?

Superguy

I know that. However, it's still good that it's getting coverage in the UK, and the Reg does have worldwide readership.

More attention is a good thing.

pmocek

Richard, thanks for listening to the trial and for posting your thoughts on it. (Ditto for others who did or will do so. I just happen to have re-read Richard's comment, and it contains lots to respond to.) It's very interesting to me to hear others' thoughts on this stuff that I've been so internally focused on for 14 months, and have refrained from speaking with others about for so long.

Similarly, I can hardly express how nice it was for others to finally see my video. There weren't very many of us who knew what really happened until that video -- the best evidence of what happened -- was presented in court by the state. As my lawyer said in court in December, she hadn't seen it until mid-December, and she only saw it a few days before the prosecution saw it.

Are you sure about that? Consider:

• When "Breedon briefed his manager, Romero, on the situation, he said, "First of all, he's refusing to show ID. Second of all, he's videotaping and taking pictures of the process." This can be heard within the first few seconds of my video.
• Immediately after De La Peńa leaned in and said, "He don't want to show his I.D., either.," Dilley said, "Let's go sir. You're leaving the airport. You're being escorted out at this point. Let's go. And if you refuse, we'll arrest you." (1:57 in my video)
• District Attorney Kari Brandenburg said it was about ID during a December interview on KOB-TV. ("In this day and age, when you get a prescription, when you go get a medical exam, you usually have to show a picture ID - that’s what we do. This individual refused to show his ID, and refused to obey a lawful order. He was asked to leave and he refused to leave.")

Do you suspect that's still the case? I wish we could get someone to find out.

That form is interesting. In court, Breedon testified that he was concerned about the possibility of me filming the form, which he testified is marked SSI. He also testified that he was going to have me sign the form after he completed it. During the trial, my lawyer printed a copy of the form off of TSA's Web site. Breedon was shown the one we printed, and he said that his has a different typeface and some additional check-boxes.

Breedon's focus changed, for sure. He testified that that's when he "paused" (he insisted he did not stop the process, only paused it) the process. Earlier, he had claimed that my photography was not allowed in part because it interfered with "the screening process".

According to Dilley's testimony, it was a disturbance issue. He said he's there to help maintain the peaceful atmosphere at the airport, and as he approached, he stopped near the metal detectors, heard me yelling, and then went over to where the TSA staff and I were standing.

What I might and might not have done if Breedon hadn't "paused" the process and told me that photography and videotaping are not allowed at the checkpoint wasn't relevant to the charges against me.

In the written statement he submitted to the police (among the documents I received via public records request, on pp. 13-14 of mocek_albuquerque_public_disclosure_2009-11-19.pdf), he consistently used "passenger Mocek." I agree that it seems likely that the DA would have preferred "defendant" during the trial.

It's interesting that in Dilley's initial incident report (pp. 3-4 of the aforementioned document) he referred to me as "the offender" but in his criminal complaint (p. 12), which is mostly the same document, but without the last paragraph, he changed every instance of the phrase "the offender" to "the defendant."

There were two of them, and while I'm not in court enough to know what is exceptional, I think they did an excellent job. I worked mostly with Molly Schmidt-Nowara (Dilley's cross-examination, closing arguments), who worked in consultation with Nancy Hollander (opening arguments, Breedon's cross-examination), with Nancy joining to assist at trial time. We all enjoyed working together. You don't have to like someone to work with him or her, but it sure makes things easier and more comfortable. They make me want to retire and go to law school.

Agreed.

You can't hear this in the trial audio, but I think the jury did an excellent job, too. Obviously, I think they made the right decision, but more importantly (to everyone except me, for whom it was of utmost importance that they acknowlege the lack of credible evidence in support of the state's claims) it was obvious that they paid close attention. It's a big imposition to sit in on two days of trial, and although showing up for jury duty when called is required, serving on a jury is almost completely avoidable (just answer "no" to the question about whether you think you can render a fair verdict), and it's very touching to me to have seven people up there acting as a the last check the power of the state. I was overwhelmed with emotion after jury selection. I was happy, because I thought we got a great jury (more on that some other time), but I also felt sort of indebted to them, before we even started the trial. I've never had the opportunity to serve on a jury, but I think it's a very honorable thing to do. In this case, my freedom was truly in their hands, and they took it seriously. I thank them for that.

That was a fun part, huh? If I remember right, they'd approached the bench because Drebing's direct examination of Dilley seemed to be headed toward revealing that I'd been jailed as a result of my actions at the airport. The problem with doing so, as I understand it, is that it's likely to have a negative effect on the jury's opinion of the defendant. One might think that silly little charges like those they threw at me (sure, I could have done jail time, but this is the kind of stuff cops charge people with at a protest) would result in citations and a promise to return for court, and one might think that if someone was put in jail rather than released after some paperwork, he must have seemed dangerous, or at least very troublesome.

The huddle broke. Drebing went on questioning Dilley. When he and Dilley started talking about Dilley booking me into the jail, Molly objected, they approached the bench. The judge sent the jury out, and there was discussion of our motion for a mistrial. It was not granted. I haven't reviewed the tape, but as I remember it, there was some conflict over whether the jury would equate "booking" with "being put in jail".

By, "according to the video," did you mean to refer to that which you observed in the video? If so, I'm curious at which point or points in the video you saw or heard anyone ask me to identify myself. There was substantial discussion of that topic in this thread months ago. If it wasn't so unwieldy, I'd cite a reference, but I just can't dig in right now.

At no point during that video did I say, "I'm not answering any questions." Let's look at everything I said that is now public record. There wasn't much.

Transcript of the arrest video, filtered for lines in which I spoke:
In that video, I didn't ever say "I'm not answering any questions". The only thing I said on there that I would not do was interfere with or try to stop people from doing their jobs.

And from a police audio recording that I strongly suspect is from Wiggins' "belt tape" (the utility-belt-mounted audio recorder that all Albuquerque police wear and turn on when they want to), which was not admitted as evidence, but was and likely still is available via public records request, we have:

I did say that I was going to remain silent, but what is that besides me clarifying that the 5th Amendment applies? I mean, who wouldn't say that? If you're under arrest, shut your trap, because you can only make things worse by talking to the person investigating you, right? Your silence can't be used against you, right?

pmocek

I can't answer that directly, but ignoring the fact that "screener" isn't a word, but a title made up by our government to describe those who search us and question us about our personal business, in both cases without warrant or reason for suspicion, please know that 1) I don't know what taking people to civil court and getting a judgement from them involves, and 2) I don't have a dime to spend on it. Learning the law is difficult and time consuming. I can't learn it myself right now (much as I'd like to do so, I have rent to pay), and I can't afford to pay any more legal experts any time soon.

What would you do if you were in my place?

#10

Phil, congratulations. You are my hero. I've followed this thread on and off but have not seen a post that states whether you (or other FT'ers) have been flying sans ID since the incident or since your victory. If I have missed it, someone can tell me to search, and I will do so. Interested to know the current cost of flying without ID.

juelzkellz

Going to civil court means you sue the individual parties involved. Well, if I were in your place, with no cash on hand I would just avoid TSA. But, if I did have some cash, I'd sue them in civil court.