Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Nov 17, 2009, 9:22 am
#151
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
The TSA can levy civil penalties (not quite a 'fine', but close) which you can refuse to pay and then appeal to an Administrative Law Judge. The Judge can dismiss the fine or uphold it - but either way someone outside of the TSA is ruling on the merit of their action.
Not only that, but the ALJ hearing your case will be near the place where the incident occurred, which could be thousands of miles from your home. According to anecdotal evidence, the TSA threatens that the fine will increase if you go to the ALJ. In addition, the burden of proof is much lower only requiring a preponderance of the evidence.
Nov 17, 2009, 9:27 am
#152
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Washington, D.C.
Programs: AA Gold, UA Silver, Hyatt Plat, SPG Gold, Hilton Gold, Marriott Silver, Hertz #1 Club Gold
Posts: 219
The truth may be somewhere in between. (Disclaimer: I have absolutely no understanding of UK law.) It might be possible, for instance, for UK law to prohibit a business from requiring the production of a driver's license for non-driving purposes, while permitting a person to voluntarily produce it for other purposes. In that case, a UK business might ask a customer to produce documents of their choice to prove their identity, of which a driver's license would be an acceptable choice.
Nov 17, 2009, 9:30 am
#153
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,919
No but the US does not consider a UK or other foreign DL acceptable ID therefore asking for a DL from a foreigner is rediculous because the State say only Passports are sufficiant ID. So how can a TSO request a foreign DL over a passport?
Nov 17, 2009, 9:30 am
#154
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Washington, D.C.
Programs: AA Gold, UA Silver, Hyatt Plat, SPG Gold, Hilton Gold, Marriott Silver, Hertz #1 Club Gold
Posts: 219
Out of curiosity, do other countries require passengers to show picture ID in order to board domestic flights?
Nov 17, 2009, 9:34 am
#155
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 488
I really just do not understand this argument. I love the freedom that we have in the US to not show ID doing 90% of what we do. I love the fact that I have driven across the US at least 8 times and you never have to show ID at any point. You just have freedom to roam in this country. I love it. On the other hand, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that in order to board an airplane, the airline or the TSA would want to verify that you are the person that the boarding pass says that you are. I have heard all of the arguments against this and they all sound like a 10 yo arguing about why something isn't 'fair'. Now, if you can demonstrate to me that we can go back to the days of no ID to board an airplane, then let's hear it, but I see no way this can be seen as even inconvenient.
By the way, I cannot watch the video on my current machine so I have not actually seen waht happened, just what is related on this thread.
By the way, I cannot watch the video on my current machine so I have not actually seen waht happened, just what is related on this thread.
You are not the issue, it seems that you are just comfortable being a sheep being led to the slaughter. Others feel that there is a rights issue here which the TSA is stepping all over.
Nov 17, 2009, 9:34 am
#156
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Washington, D.C.
Programs: AA Gold, UA Silver, Hyatt Plat, SPG Gold, Hilton Gold, Marriott Silver, Hertz #1 Club Gold
Posts: 219
I agree that it's odd to reject a passport and require a foreign driver's license instead. But I'm not sure it's true that the US government doesn't consider a foreign driver's license to be proof of identity. Obviously you need to show a passport to get through immigration, but that's because a passport is proof of both identity AND citizenship (as well as possession of any necessary visas).
Nov 17, 2009, 9:36 am
#157
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,919
Oh heck I had no idea one actually had to have onself arrested to test or contest the "legaitity" or conformity of a law or requirement to the constitution in the US. That seems a bit extreme doesn't it. Ok I understand it is to stop every Tom, Dick and Harry from throwing a spanner into the works just for the sake of it but if a person can represent reasonable doubt - as one could assume in this case surely there is a better way of raising those doubts?
Nov 17, 2009, 9:47 am
#158
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Washington, D.C.
Programs: AA Gold, UA Silver, Hyatt Plat, SPG Gold, Hilton Gold, Marriott Silver, Hertz #1 Club Gold
Posts: 219
Oh heck I had no idea one actually had to have onself arrested to test or contest the "legaitity" or conformity of a law or requirement to the constitution in the US. That seems a bit extreme doesn't it. Ok I understand it is to stop every Tom, Dick and Harry from throwing a spanner into the works just for the sake of it but if a person can represent reasonable doubt - as one could assume in this case surely there is a better way of raising those doubts?
In fact, someone did exactly that in a case challenging the TSA's ID requirements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales There, the court held that there was no constitutional violation because TSA policy was to let passengers without ID fly if they agreed to be subjected to secondary screening. If this is no longer TSA policy (as the TSA's actions towards Phil would seem to indicate), then perhaps a new lawsuit is in order.
Last edited by Mr. Mastodon Flyer; Nov 17, 2009 at 9:48 am Reason: typo
Nov 17, 2009, 9:50 am
#159
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MSY
Programs: NW Gold and now Delta Gold
Posts: 3,072
This is extremely disturbing to me also. If Phil wanted to do a test case of the system, he should not have involved a friend and screwed up his life and future as well. People don't always win test cases. You are judged by your associations. This other person may experience a lot of problems in the future because Phil blabbed that they were traveling together. Did the friend know that Phil was going to be making this test? In that case, I guess it's the friend's free decision to associate with this hassle.
The account we read, at least the one I just read in the first link, is from Phil's own page, so of course we're getting only one side of the story.
If you are a TSA or LEO, and you see someone creating a disturbance, from their point of view, you have to wonder why the disturbance/distraction is being created, and of course you are going to inspect any known associates or companions. It might seem unfair to us, but it probably seems like common sense law enforcement to them.
I believe that people need to be able to travel without ID, because IDs get lost and stolen all the time, and there isn't much alternative, but there's a big difference between having a lost ID and arranging to get there in plenty of time to request extra screening -- and just refusing to show ID and then pulling out a camera and creating something of a scene. Try it one way, and you can quietly continue to travel without ID if need be in an emergency. Start creating a scene and you may create resistance where you wouldn't have previously met any, causing not only you but many other people in future to be inconvenienced.
[QUOTE=Trollkiller;12826447]What concerns me is his partner that by the account I read was not doing ANYTHING, was seized by the police, and removed from public property for knowing Phil.
[QUOTE]
The account we read, at least the one I just read in the first link, is from Phil's own page, so of course we're getting only one side of the story.
If you are a TSA or LEO, and you see someone creating a disturbance, from their point of view, you have to wonder why the disturbance/distraction is being created, and of course you are going to inspect any known associates or companions. It might seem unfair to us, but it probably seems like common sense law enforcement to them.
I believe that people need to be able to travel without ID, because IDs get lost and stolen all the time, and there isn't much alternative, but there's a big difference between having a lost ID and arranging to get there in plenty of time to request extra screening -- and just refusing to show ID and then pulling out a camera and creating something of a scene. Try it one way, and you can quietly continue to travel without ID if need be in an emergency. Start creating a scene and you may create resistance where you wouldn't have previously met any, causing not only you but many other people in future to be inconvenienced.
[QUOTE=Trollkiller;12826447]What concerns me is his partner that by the account I read was not doing ANYTHING, was seized by the police, and removed from public property for knowing Phil.
[QUOTE]
Last edited by peachfront; Nov 17, 2009 at 9:56 am
Nov 17, 2009, 9:59 am
#161
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,919
I take it this case is going to make very interesting reading although something like this surely will take a longer period of time to clear up and if a court allows it (as I it seems there is a possiblity it will get thrown out from the getgo) and it will probably have to clear more than one court for it to have any effect on your future travels - right?
Nov 17, 2009, 10:16 am
#162
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MSY
Programs: NW Gold and now Delta Gold
Posts: 3,072
IMHO, all it will do for "our" future travels is make it more difficult, by hardening the attitude of the TSA toward flyers who don't have ID. Most of those flyers will be victims of robbery, pickpockets, and so on, and having yet another barrier in their path home isn't an improvement. Too bad we can't work with TSA instead of as adversaries. We all have the same goal, a safe flight.
Nov 17, 2009, 10:28 am
#164
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
IMHO, all it will do for "our" future travels is make it more difficult, by hardening the attitude of the TSA toward flyers who don't have ID. Most of those flyers will be victims of robbery, pickpockets, and so on, and having yet another barrier in their path home isn't an improvement. Too bad we can't work with TSA instead of as adversaries. We all have the same goal, a safe flight.
Nov 17, 2009, 10:33 am
#165
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,943
Wirelessly posted (goingaway's phone: BlackBerry8900/4.6.1.231 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)
Not so sure those goals are really aligned either
Originally Posted by peachfront
IMHO, all it will do for "our" future travels is make it more difficult, by hardening the attitude of the TSA toward flyers who don't have ID. Most of those flyers will be victims of robbery, pickpockets, and so on, and having yet another barrier in their path home isn't an improvement. Too bad we can't work with TSA instead of as adversaries. We all have the same goal, a safe flight.