Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Nov 17, 2009, 2:44 pm
#181
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
As a manager, I work alongside LEOs every day. They treat me well, and we talk. However none of them are going to allow me or anyone else to tell them who to arrest.
castro
Nov 17, 2009, 3:13 pm
#183
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
We need the TSO's statements to the police.
Nov 17, 2009, 3:14 pm
#184
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
According to the news (again rely on the news at your own risk), a TSA supervisor went ballistic when Phil began recording the incident. When the local police showed up he was immediately taken into custody and charged. Suspect that that TSA supervisor was heavily involved in having Phil arrested. The legal minutiae/wrestling will leave that up to the lawyers. What was said/done on camera may provide evidence in a lawsuit.
Nov 17, 2009, 3:17 pm
#185
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Nov 17, 2009, 3:35 pm
#186
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
According to the news (again rely on the news at your own risk), a TSA supervisor went ballistic when Phil began recording the incident. When the local police showed up he was immediately taken into custody and charged. Suspect that that TSA supervisor was heavily involved in having Phil arrested. The legal minutiae/wrestling will leave that up to the lawyers. What was said/done on camera may provide evidence in a lawsuit.
The only way anyone from TSA is responsible for the arrest is if they lied to the police officer. In which case they would certainly be subject to a lawsuit.
It boggles me that people on this forum think that any LEO would ask a non-LEO for advice about who to arrest. They would ask questions, and determine what happened. But they are going to make the decision about arrest without the STSO's input.
castro
Nov 17, 2009, 4:04 pm
#187
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
The supervisor that called the police and the individual officers may be on the hook for violating Phil's rights. (This assumes the "facts" that we have heard are true.)
Nov 17, 2009, 4:20 pm
#188
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
It is absolutely meaningless to say that anyone from TSA was "heavily involved" in having someone arrested. Law enforcement officers are trained and accountable for knowing the legality of making an arrest. If the officer made a mistake in arresting the passenger, he alone is responsible.
The only way anyone from TSA is responsible for the arrest is if they lied to the police officer. In which case they would certainly be subject to a lawsuit.
The only way anyone from TSA is responsible for the arrest is if they lied to the police officer. In which case they would certainly be subject to a lawsuit.
1. TSO tells LEO that passenger refused to produce ID, which is in violation of TSA regulations, so LEO decides to arrest passenger for "concealing identity." But is there really a legal regulation that states that? The LEO depends on the TSO for that.
2. TSO says that passenger can't enter the sterile area if the passenger refuses to produce ID. Passenger continues to refuse and again requests entry. TSO tells LEO that passenger wouldn't leave after TSO told him to. LEO arrests him for "criminal trespass" based on the TSO's assertion of a legal regulation that you can't enter the checkpoint if you refuse to provide ID. But is it legal?
3. TSO tells LEO that passenger then started to film him and the checkpoint including the SSI monitors even after the TSO told him to stop. TSO tells LEO that it is against regulations to film checkpoints and SSI. So LEO decides to arrest passenger for "disturbing the peace." Remember Phil sent out requests to the TSA located at over 40 airports on the ability to take photographs at the screening checkpoint. He received responses from fewer than half and of those only about half gave a conclusive response. And until recently ISP had a sign above the checkpoint that said "No Photography." So I am sure that some TSO's do think that photography may be prohibited.
4. Following scenario 3, the LEO tells him to stop filming as that is not legal under TSA regulations and passenger asserts that it is legal and he has the proof. TSO reiterates that it is not permissible, so LEO arrests passenger for "failure to obey an officer."
I think that takes care of all four charges.
Nov 17, 2009, 4:31 pm
#189
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
This is purely hypothetical to show how the TSA can be "heavily involved":
1. TSO tells LEO that passenger refused to produce ID, which is in violation of TSA regulations, so LEO decides to arrest passenger for "concealing identity." But is there really a legal regulation that states that? The LEO depends on the TSO for that.
2. TSO says that passenger can't enter the sterile area if the passenger refuses to produce ID. Passenger continues to refuse and again requests entry. TSO tells LEO that passenger wouldn't leave after TSO told him to. LEO arrests him for "criminal trespass" based on the TSO's assertion of a legal regulation that you can't enter the checkpoint if you refuse to provide ID. But is it legal?
3. TSO tells LEO that passenger then started to film him and the checkpoint including the SSI monitors even after the TSO told him to stop. TSO tells LEO that it is against regulations to film checkpoints and SSI. So LEO decides to arrest passenger for "disturbing the peace." Remember Phil sent out requests to the TSA located at over 40 airports on the ability to take photographs at the screening checkpoint. He received responses from fewer than half and of those only about half gave a conclusive response. And until recently ISP had a sign above the checkpoint that said "No Photography." So I am sure that some TSO's do think that photography may be prohibited.
4. Following scenario 3, the LEO tells him to stop filming as that is not legal under TSA regulations and passenger asserts that it is legal and he has the proof. TSO reiterates that it is not permissible, so LEO arrests passenger for "failure to obey an officer."
I think that takes care of all four charges.
1. TSO tells LEO that passenger refused to produce ID, which is in violation of TSA regulations, so LEO decides to arrest passenger for "concealing identity." But is there really a legal regulation that states that? The LEO depends on the TSO for that.
2. TSO says that passenger can't enter the sterile area if the passenger refuses to produce ID. Passenger continues to refuse and again requests entry. TSO tells LEO that passenger wouldn't leave after TSO told him to. LEO arrests him for "criminal trespass" based on the TSO's assertion of a legal regulation that you can't enter the checkpoint if you refuse to provide ID. But is it legal?
3. TSO tells LEO that passenger then started to film him and the checkpoint including the SSI monitors even after the TSO told him to stop. TSO tells LEO that it is against regulations to film checkpoints and SSI. So LEO decides to arrest passenger for "disturbing the peace." Remember Phil sent out requests to the TSA located at over 40 airports on the ability to take photographs at the screening checkpoint. He received responses from fewer than half and of those only about half gave a conclusive response. And until recently ISP had a sign above the checkpoint that said "No Photography." So I am sure that some TSO's do think that photography may be prohibited.
4. Following scenario 3, the LEO tells him to stop filming as that is not legal under TSA regulations and passenger asserts that it is legal and he has the proof. TSO reiterates that it is not permissible, so LEO arrests passenger for "failure to obey an officer."
I think that takes care of all four charges.
That sounds about right.
When I explained to my son the charges Phil faces he nodded his head on everything but criminal trespass. He said "How in the heck did they toss that one in there? He is only 12 but he gets it. I am so proud.
Last edited by Trollkiller; Nov 17, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Nov 17, 2009, 4:51 pm
#190
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Here's a link to Phil's case on the court's website. Trial is set for Feb 5:
http://www.metrocourt.state.nm.us/ca...573709&defno=1
In case the court doesn't allow deep links, here's the front door link (search for "mosack p"):
http://www.metrocourt.state.nm.us/ca....jsp?form=case
http://www.metrocourt.state.nm.us/ca...573709&defno=1
In case the court doesn't allow deep links, here's the front door link (search for "mosack p"):
http://www.metrocourt.state.nm.us/ca....jsp?form=case
Nov 17, 2009, 5:00 pm
#191
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 488
Nov 17, 2009, 6:34 pm
#192
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Incident mentioned on Photography Is Not A Crime.
Nov 17, 2009, 6:56 pm
#193
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Incident mentioned on Photography Is Not A Crime.
Nov 17, 2009, 6:59 pm
#194
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 684
It is absolutely meaningless to say that anyone from TSA was "heavily involved" in having someone arrested. Law enforcement officers are trained and accountable for knowing the legality of making an arrest. If the officer made a mistake in arresting the passenger, he alone is responsible.
The only way anyone from TSA is responsible for the arrest is if they lied to the police officer. In which case they would certainly be subject to a lawsuit.
It boggles me that people on this forum think that any LEO would ask a non-LEO for advice about who to arrest. They would ask questions, and determine what happened. But they are going to make the decision about arrest without the STSO's input.
castro
The only way anyone from TSA is responsible for the arrest is if they lied to the police officer. In which case they would certainly be subject to a lawsuit.
It boggles me that people on this forum think that any LEO would ask a non-LEO for advice about who to arrest. They would ask questions, and determine what happened. But they are going to make the decision about arrest without the STSO's input.
castro
Nov 17, 2009, 7:26 pm
#195
Join Date: May 2008
Location: BOS
Programs: TSA TSO
Posts: 455
Oy.
1. Immigration Officers are LEOs, i.e. they have the power of arrest and detention.
2. 4th and 5th Amendment rights do not pertain (at least to the same extent) at U.S. borders.
3. TSOs are not LEOs and do not have the power of arrest and detention.
4. TSOs are constrained to an administrative search which is confined to ensuring against entry into the sterile area with weapons, explosives or incendiaries. This search must be "minimally intrusive."
There is no comparison between what happens at Immigration upon entering the country and what happens at airports with respect to flying on a commercial aircraft.
I'm surprised you don't this.
1. Immigration Officers are LEOs, i.e. they have the power of arrest and detention.
2. 4th and 5th Amendment rights do not pertain (at least to the same extent) at U.S. borders.
3. TSOs are not LEOs and do not have the power of arrest and detention.
4. TSOs are constrained to an administrative search which is confined to ensuring against entry into the sterile area with weapons, explosives or incendiaries. This search must be "minimally intrusive."
There is no comparison between what happens at Immigration upon entering the country and what happens at airports with respect to flying on a commercial aircraft.
I'm surprised you don't this.
Nevertheless, they can hold and question BD as long as they like because of the exceptions to the law provided to CBP. They still have to let him to the country, but nothing stops them from holding and harassing him with an intense grilling from the officer and his superiors.
Whine to Fox News, seeing as they jumped on the Bierfeldt thing. Because Infowars is a just a looney-bin.
Last edited by LoganTSO; Nov 17, 2009 at 7:48 pm