Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Jan 29, 2011, 6:15 am
#1606
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
I didn't comment on Liar Bob's fantastic TSA blog. Not worth it. But I think this is a good idea.
Another idea: I wonder if each of us obtained a copy of Blogger Bob's lies and a copy of the judgment and trial transcript and sent a brief letter to each of our Congressmen and Senators as well as President Obama (For what it's worth) demanding action.
This may not go anywhere, but as long as we can keep congress aware that this thorn will not go away, eventually they might just do something about it.
Another idea: I wonder if each of us obtained a copy of Blogger Bob's lies and a copy of the judgment and trial transcript and sent a brief letter to each of our Congressmen and Senators as well as President Obama (For what it's worth) demanding action.
This may not go anywhere, but as long as we can keep congress aware that this thorn will not go away, eventually they might just do something about it.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15757480-post222.html
I will now expand that and include BB's thread as well as a transcript of the verdict - which I have not been able to find on line - if someone could direct me, I would be appreciative.
Jan 29, 2011, 6:26 am
#1608
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
That brings up one thing I've always wondered. We've all heard that when it comes to crime, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" -- in other words, even if I don't know something's illegal, if I do it, I can be arrested. Why doesn't that work the other way around? Why are the "authorities" allowed to be ignorant of the law and get away with it?
In other words, it's only perjury, whether committed by a state or defense witness, if the person knows what they saying is false. Merely being wrong or misremembering something isn't perjury.
Jan 29, 2011, 7:01 am
#1609
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,489
Once I'd looked in vain for a reference to Mr. Mocek's acquittal, I reread the topic sentence:A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently.
It's tautological and contains a misuse of the present progressive tense modified by "recently." It seems to be the work of somebody either writing in bureaucratese or trying to parody it. Maybe I'm being cruel to a non-native speaker, e.g. "I am learning English the whole time since I am ten years old."
And the headline: "A Quick Reminder on ID and Photography at TSA Checkpoints?" Shouldn't any "reminder" arising from this case be directed to employees?
This entire post on an official federal government blog is so disgraceful - avoiding mention of the acquittal - that it almost reaches the level of dark humor.
I won't be surprised if it's pulled. At the least, Mr. Mocek deserves an apology for it.
Jan 29, 2011, 7:29 am
#1610
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,028
Hopefully, some of you captured screen shots (for Phil's sake). I really wish I could read the comments (as previously mentioned, the PRC government thinks it's best if I don't have access to that site).
Jan 29, 2011, 9:46 am
#1613
In Memoriam
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
That brings up one thing I've always wondered. We've all heard that when it comes to crime, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" -- in other words, even if I don't know something's illegal, if I do it, I can be arrested. Why doesn't that work the other way around? Why are the "authorities" allowed to be ignorant of the law and get away with it?
As an example, if someone presents a cheque which they KNOW will bounce (be dishonoured) this is criminal, as there is both mens rea (they knew the cheque would bounce) as well as actus rea (the cheque bounced).
In Phil's case, there might have been actus rea - a criminal act - with regard to the TSO's testimony, namely that testimony given under oath was incorrect - but there was certainly no mens rea, the TSO was giving testimony which they truely believed to be correct. Since there was no criminal mind, they cannot be held up for perjury.
Well done to Phil for winning this one.
Dave
Jan 29, 2011, 10:28 am
#1614
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,285
I've also been listening to the trial recordings -- congrats to the defence team and all, but why on earth weren't they objecting at just about everything coming out of the prosecutor's mouth? They allowed the prosecution to introduce into evidence -- via Breedon's testimony -- the view that Mocek's "videotaping" (I highly doubt he was using videotape, but whatever) of the no ID process was "against TSA policy". What does that have to do with anything? He's not being tried for violating TSA policy, he's being tried for disorderly conduct. The prosecution is never stupid enough to assert that the photography was illegal, so why doesn't the defence attorney object to the testimony around that issue as irrelevant?
On the converse, for the life of me, I could not understand the direct examination of Officer Dilley. It was less than amateurish.
Jan 29, 2011, 11:01 am
#1615
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posts: 79
Trial record
http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/01/2...phillip-mocek/
(PapersPlease.org may be responding slowly or temporarily down at the moment due to higher traffic than usual. We're working on it, and will have it back up ASAP. If you don't get through, try again a little later.)
Jan 29, 2011, 11:04 am
#1616
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
Proceedings of this sort at this level in New Mexico are not recorded by the court. There4 was no official audio recording and no court stenographer. There is no transcript of the trial, and there won't be unless someone makes an (unofficial) transcript from the audio recording I made for the Identity Project:
http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/01/2...phillip-mocek/
(PapersPlease.org may be responding slowly or temporarily down at the moment due to higher traffic than usual. We're working on it, and will have it back up ASAP. If you don't get through, try again a little later.)
http://papersplease.org/wp/2011/01/2...phillip-mocek/
(PapersPlease.org may be responding slowly or temporarily down at the moment due to higher traffic than usual. We're working on it, and will have it back up ASAP. If you don't get through, try again a little later.)
Jan 29, 2011, 11:54 am
#1617
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
I don't understand your point. Not knowing that something is a crime isn't an excuse, but not knowing you were commiting the act that's a crime is an excuse. In other words, if you bring a knife to a checkpoint knowing that you're carrying the knife, but not knowing that it's illegal, that's a crime. But if you don't know you have the knife, then it's not a crime.
In other words, it's only perjury, whether committed by a state or defense witness, if the person knows what they saying is false. Merely being wrong or misremembering something isn't perjury.
In other words, it's only perjury, whether committed by a state or defense witness, if the person knows what they saying is false. Merely being wrong or misremembering something isn't perjury.
My job/industry is highly regulated by both state and federal statutes. It is part of my job to know that what I am doing is compliant with 1) the law and 2) proper procedures. Not doing so doesn't lead to additional training. It leads to discipline up to including termination.
In this instance a lazy TSO supervisor who could not be bothered to educate himself about proper procedures started a chain of events that lead to a citizen being denied his freedom for a period of time all because the TSO didn't know his own rules.
Perhaps perjury isn't justified.
Termination most certainly would be.
Jan 29, 2011, 12:13 pm
#1618
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: order to leave (?), secret form for passengers to sign
The jury found that I did not refuse any lawful order from the police.
Officer Dilley testified that I refused to leave after being ordered to do so. The video evidence introduced by the state (the video I made) includes officer Dilley repeatedly telling me that I would be escorted out of the airport if certain things did or did not happen. On it, he can also heard saying, "Let's go. You're being escorted out of the airport," about two seconds after which it can be seen that I began walking. At that time, Dilley is not heard saying anything indicating that I've refused to go with him. Shortly after that, it becomes obvious that Officer Dilley and I are walking in close proximity to each other. The video ends with him confiscating my camera and me requesting a receipt. At that time, we can be seen on airport surveillance camera images.
Mr. Breedon, the TSA security guard who began to perform the alternative identification process after being informed by Mr. Martinez (TSA document checker) that I did not have identity documents, testified that he was concerned about me filming the form he was completing.
It's doubtful. Mr. Breedon also testified that TSA procedure is to have the passenger sign that form after it is completed by TSA staff.
It's also interesting that my attorneys downloaded a copy of the form from the Web [edit: I previously wrote "TSA Web site" but I don't remember for sure whether it came from TSA's site, IDP's site, or elsewhere on the Web] and showed it to Mr. Breedon in court. He said that his form had a different typeface and a few more check-boxes at the end.
Officer Dilley testified that I refused to leave after being ordered to do so. The video evidence introduced by the state (the video I made) includes officer Dilley repeatedly telling me that I would be escorted out of the airport if certain things did or did not happen. On it, he can also heard saying, "Let's go. You're being escorted out of the airport," about two seconds after which it can be seen that I began walking. At that time, Dilley is not heard saying anything indicating that I've refused to go with him. Shortly after that, it becomes obvious that Officer Dilley and I are walking in close proximity to each other. The video ends with him confiscating my camera and me requesting a receipt. At that time, we can be seen on airport surveillance camera images.
It's also interesting that my attorneys downloaded a copy of the form from the Web [edit: I previously wrote "TSA Web site" but I don't remember for sure whether it came from TSA's site, IDP's site, or elsewhere on the Web] and showed it to Mr. Breedon in court. He said that his form had a different typeface and a few more check-boxes at the end.
Last edited by pmocek; Jan 29, 2011 at 6:56 pm Reason: [edit: I previously wrote "TSA Web site" but I don't remember for sure whether it came from TSA's site, IDP's site, or elsewh
Jan 29, 2011, 3:15 pm
#1619
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
My analysis of Blogger Bob's post and why I think it is Francine:
http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/01/new-mexi...cek-quick.html
The post (later) does say that the TSA is "grateful for the support provided to [it] by the Albuquerque police" but the post does not make any explicit mention of any criminal activity, arrest, charges, trial or verdict.
The post does say that "this process had begun" but the post does not say anything about Mr. Mocek's specific ID situation. General ID fluff is included in the paragraph, though .
The post does say that the “TSA does not prohibit photography at checkpoints as long as there is no interference with the screening process” but the post does not say that Mr. Mocek interfered with the screening process.
The post does say that "Mr. Mocek . . . appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information" but the post does not say that filming SSI is illegal or that it interferes with the screening process.
The post does say that behavior like that of Mr. Mocek "interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers" but the post does not say that such behavior is illegal or that it interferes with the screening process.
It looks a lot like the cash post.
Reminder:
Originally Posted by Blogger Bob
A recent case - New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek - is making the news recently. The case stemmed from Mr. Mocek’s failure to cooperate with the instructions of Albuquerque police officers at the Albuquerque International Sunport Airport after interactions he had with TSA transportation security officers.
Originally Posted by Blogger Bob
Mr. Mocek had a boarding pass, but would not produce ID when asked. As I've said before here on the blog, if you don’t have an ID, TSA will work with you to verify you are who you say you are. On the other hand, if you refuse to provide information, you will not be permitted to fly. This process had begun with Mr. Mocek, but was not completed. Without an ID that matches the individual holding the boarding pass, we can’t be sure the passenger has cleared government watchlists.
.
Originally Posted by Blogger Bob
As far as photography, as I stated in a previous post, TSA does not prohibit photography at checkpoints as long as there is no interference with the screening process. As TSOs were talking to Mr. Mocek to verify his identity, he was holding a camera up to film them and appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information related to TSA standard operating procedures on ID verification. Such behavior interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers.
We are grateful for the support provided to TSA by the Albuquerque police.
We are grateful for the support provided to TSA by the Albuquerque police.
The post does say that "Mr. Mocek . . . appeared to be trying to film sensitive security information" but the post does not say that filming SSI is illegal or that it interferes with the screening process.
The post does say that behavior like that of Mr. Mocek "interferes with the ordinary course of business at the checkpoint and may well delay other passengers" but the post does not say that such behavior is illegal or that it interferes with the screening process.
It looks a lot like the cash post.
Reminder:
Originally Posted by Francine
Sometimes a TSA officer may ask a passenger who is carrying a large sum of cash to account for the money. You have asked why such a question is posed and whether a passenger is required to answer.
In reacting to potential security problems or signs of criminal activity, TSA officers are trained to ask questions and assess passenger reactions, including whether a passenger appears to be cooperative and forthcoming in responding.
TSA officers routinely come across evidence of criminal activity at the airport checkpoint. Examples include evidence of illegal drug trafficking, money laundering, and violations of currency reporting requirements prior to international trips.
When presented with a passenger carrying a large sum of money through the screening checkpoint, the TSA officer will frequently engage in dialog with the passenger to determine whether a referral to law-enforcement authorities is warranted.
The TSA officer may consider all circumstances in making the assessment, including the behavior and credibility of the passenger. Thus, a failure to be forthcoming may inform a TSA officer’s decision to call law-enforcement authorities.
In reacting to potential security problems or signs of criminal activity, TSA officers are trained to ask questions and assess passenger reactions, including whether a passenger appears to be cooperative and forthcoming in responding.
TSA officers routinely come across evidence of criminal activity at the airport checkpoint. Examples include evidence of illegal drug trafficking, money laundering, and violations of currency reporting requirements prior to international trips.
When presented with a passenger carrying a large sum of money through the screening checkpoint, the TSA officer will frequently engage in dialog with the passenger to determine whether a referral to law-enforcement authorities is warranted.
The TSA officer may consider all circumstances in making the assessment, including the behavior and credibility of the passenger. Thus, a failure to be forthcoming may inform a TSA officer’s decision to call law-enforcement authorities.
Jan 29, 2011, 3:22 pm
#1620
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,004
http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/01/new-mexi...cek-quick.htmlIt looks a lot like the cash post.
something frilly, perhaps?