Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 12970836)
Mr. Phil's case has grabbed my attention and guess what I find reading through the first few pages of posts here on FT. None other than someone throwing an insult my way from a post over a year ago regarding policies at BNA. Seriously? let it goooo....If you think I'm an "iron fist," feel free to contact me by PM next time you're through BNA and we'll have a chat.
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 9832818)
Not that I think there is a big issue with photography, but since the checkpoints are located in an airport, which is private property, ceasing to take photographs when told can cause you to be removed from the airport, whether you are attempting to fly or not.
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 9843109)
Again...time, place, and business doing there. I will find out why. Whether a private photographer or the Channel 4 News, permission is required in most cases. If the photographer does not want to cooperate (providing ID, reason there, etc), then he will be leaving. Refusal to leave will result in a possible arrest. If he is cooperative, not getting in the way, and is not taking pictures of the screening process, he's good to go. It's not that hard to understand, and in fact the website you provided mentions cooperation with law enforcement.
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 9845006)
No "laws" involved. Someone simply at the airport to take photos will be questioned. Refusal to cooperate as to their intentions will result in their removal of the airport. As I say refuse to cooperate and refuse to leave, you end up in jail. Challenge it in the courts if you are so sure of yourself.
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 12970836)
As far as your case Phil, I don't know the specific circumstances and I'm sure you can't elaborate, but many will be paying attention the court hearing coming up in Feb. I just hope the thousands of dollars being shelled out by you and others is worth it.
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 12970836)
Actually I'm surprised I haven't seen the recent cases here on FT where searches and subsequent arrests have been thrown out due to TSA overstepping the administrative search, or maybe I didn't go through enough of the threads.
|
I found the following quotes in an article on helicopter parenting on the Time website:
All great rebellions are born of private acts of civil disobedience that inspire rebel bands to plot together. ...we have lost our ability to assess risk. I was struck by the similarities in the dysfunction of helicopter parenting and DHS/TSA. Article can be found at: Link |
Do you see some similarities with your thoughts on photography and how it appears the LEO reacted in ABQ? My posts simply explain that someone cannot come in the airport and start taking pictures any time they feel like it without any repercussions, depending on their intent for taking the pictures. It's pretty easy to determine those that are there for financial gain (paparazzi) versus mom & pops who are taking pictures of airplanes and family throughout the concourse or in front of our poinsettia tree by the ticket counter. The only person who can ban someone from an airport is the Airport Director. Although most states have local laws which give proxy authority from businesses to cops in order to prevent loitering, the other passenger had a legitimate reason to be there. Unless the airline refused to transport them, the police had no legal basis to remove that individual unless the Airport Director gave the order and would need some legitimate reason to do so. It looks like Phil is taking your advice of over a year ago and will "challenge it in the courts." My true belief, even if the local charges get dismissed and he wins his little battle in ABQ, he will still lose the war. Millions of other Americans have no problems with the current TSA practices in place. Of the few policies that are a severe pain in the rear, they are not troublesome enough (in my opinion) to bear arms and storm the front lawn of the White House. |
Wirelessly posted (goingaway's phone: BlackBerry8900/4.6.1.231 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)
"Millions" of americans crack jokes and discuss their disgust in private. You are sorely mistaken if you think this is a one-man/FF position. Talk to folks in the neighborhood casually about travel, who have no idea what you do. I would guess you would be surprised to hear their comments - I stay home, that security stuff sounds like a pain, we drive to grandmas the airport experience was so horrible we won't do that again and on it goes. There is def a mix of issues and often the airport/airline get blamed for tsa type issues, but there is no way you can say americans are happy, satisfied or even settled about tsa bs these days. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014145)
....Actual boca, we are an agent of the Airport Authority and can issue trespass warnings without authority of the director. I have never attempted to "ban" someone for life from the airport, but I have issued trespass warnings to plenty who caused problems and/or were arrested.
The same authority is granted by retailers and other entities who authorize the police to act on their behalf to remove loiterers and trespassers - in Florida this authority is conveyed via a notice attached to the exterior of buildings. The owner of the building still has the final authority on who can be on their property. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014145)
...Millions of other Americans have no problems with the current TSA practices in place. ....
|
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014145)
It is my understanding that the photography bit is just a ruse to play into the bigger issue of refusing to show ID at the security checkpoint. He did not get arrested for approaching the checkpoint & filming/taking photos. He declined to show ID and whipped out the camera when the TSA supervisor arrived, who subsequently called police. To me, the narrative of the story indicates he wanted to put on a show. Well, he sure got one. He asked ABQ ahead of time about photography in the airport, but I guess he should have been more specific. I think he should have called ABQ and stated, "Hello, my name is Phil. I plan on refusing to show ID to anyone at the security checkpoint when asked. In case I get arrested, can I film it?" I'm sure he just called and asked about general filming/photography guidelines, but obviously there was an ulterior motive.
My true belief, even if the local charges get dismissed and he wins his little battle in ABQ, he will still lose the war. Millions of other Americans have no problems with the current TSA practices in place. Of the few policies that are a severe pain in the rear, they are not troublesome enough (in my opinion) to bear arms and storm the front lawn of the White House. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014145)
My posts simply explain that someone cannot come in the airport and start taking pictures any time they feel like it without any repercussions, depending on their intent for taking the pictures. It's pretty easy to determine those that are there for financial gain (paparazzi) versus mom & pops who are taking pictures of airplanes and family throughout the concourse or in front of our poinsettia tree by the ticket counter.
When it comes to "professional photography" (i.e. news channels, tripods, etc) it is appropriate (and polite) to notify and make arrangements to avoid disruption. Airports coordinate such things with news channels all the time. Some states or municipalities may have specific laws regarding security checkpoints, but otherwise photography is fair game. If you can see it with your eyes, you can photograph it. If such a law exists that prevents photography, I welcome you to cite it. |
Originally Posted by GoingAway
(Post 13014209)
"Millions" of americans crack jokes and discuss their disgust in private. You are sorely mistaken if you think this is a one-man/FF position. Talk to folks in the neighborhood casually about travel, who have no idea what you do. I would guess you would be surprised to hear their comments - I stay home, that security stuff sounds like a pain, we drive to grandmas the airport experience was so horrible we won't do that again and on it goes. There is def a mix of issues and often the airport/airline get blamed for tsa type issues, but there is no way you can say americans are happy, satisfied or even settled about tsa bs these days.
Almost everyone I know is disgusted with the TSA, most of them being occasional passengers. They may not show their displeasure at the check point, but when it comes up in conversation you will hear it. When I go through a checkpoint, I just grin and bear it. I'm polite to TSA staff, I use words like "please", "thank you", and "you're welcome" in my encounters with TSO's -- but my goal is to get through and get it over with ASAP. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014145)
My posts simply explain that someone cannot come in the airport and start taking pictures any time they feel like it without any repercussions, depending on their intent for taking the pictures. It's pretty easy to determine those that are there for financial gain (paparazzi) versus mom & pops who are taking pictures of airplanes and family throughout the concourse or in front of our poinsettia tree by the ticket counter.
When it comes to "taking pictures any time," I want to assure you that case law exists establishing that airports, bus terminals, train stations and other transportation centers are public spaces. Which means there is no expectation of privacy so I or anyone else with a camera has the right to take pictures there. Yes, there are security exemptions to the blanket statement I just made but they are very limited. This is even more the case should I bring my notebook and my camera to your airport if the Airport Authority you mentioned is a government entity or an owned-by-government entity, but even if it's a privately-owned airport (and I believe at the moment the only such entity served by commercial airlines is the new airport in Branson, MO) you do not have the authority to tell journalists what they can and cannot cover, and you do not have the authority to decide who is and is not a journalist. It's polite to tell someone that you're coming and (except in the very unusual circumstances that would justify an "ambush interview" or when time is so very limited even a quick phone call isn't possible) most reporters or press photographers would do so -- but not because they need permission. Yes, that means paparazzi and people like Larry Flynt are covered by the First Amendment -- because if you don't protect the rights of the unsavory you can't protect the rights of more respectable journalists or publications. And we would all be a lot worse off if someone in a position of authority decided a precedent set while putting limits on TMZ or Hustler allows them to restrict the reporting of AP or Time. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014145)
I think taking pictures for financial gain without airport permission versus someone refusing to show ID is quite different.
My posts simply explain that someone cannot come in the airport and start taking pictures any time they feel like it without any repercussions, depending on their intent for taking the pictures. It's pretty easy to determine those that are there for financial gain (paparazzi) versus mom & pops who are taking pictures of airplanes and family throughout the concourse or in front of our poinsettia tree by the ticket counter. Perhaps a review of your quotes would show how the LEO and TSO Supervisor at ABQ allegedly acted similar to your view on the matter. Some of your requirements are outside the boundaries of permissibility. Originally Posted by SgtScott31 Not that I think there is a big issue with photography, but since the checkpoints are located in an airport, which is private property, ceasing to take photographs when told can cause you to be removed from the airport, whether you are attempting to fly or not. Again...time, place, and business doing there. I will find out why. Whether a private photographer or the Channel 4 News, permission is required in most cases. If the photographer does not want to cooperate (providing ID, reason there, etc), then he will be leaving. Refusal to leave will result in a possible arrest. If he is cooperative, not getting in the way, and is not taking pictures of the screening process, he's good to go. It's not that hard to understand, and in fact the website you provided mentions cooperation with law enforcement. No "laws" involved. Someone simply at the airport to take photos will be questioned. Refusal to cooperate as to their intentions will result in their removal of the airport. As I say refuse to cooperate and refuse to leave, you end up in jail. Challenge it in the courts if you are so sure of yourself.
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014145)
It is my understanding that the photography bit is just a ruse to play into the bigger issue of refusing to show ID at the security checkpoint. He did not get arrested for approaching the checkpoint & filming/taking photos. He declined to show ID and whipped out the camera when the TSA supervisor arrived, who subsequently called police. To me, the narrative of the story indicates he wanted to put on a show. Well, he sure got one. He asked ABQ ahead of time about photography in the airport, but I guess he should have been more specific. I think he should have called ABQ and stated, "Hello, my name is Phil. I plan on refusing to show ID to anyone at the security checkpoint when asked. In case I get arrested, can I film it?" I'm sure he just called and asked about general filming/photography guidelines, but obviously there was an ulterior motive.
From the indications that I have seen, it would appear that the triggering event to call the LEO was not the refusal to show ID (which should be completely an internal TSA matter), but the filming. I think that it was in Phil's best interest to film the encounter or else we would have a he said/she said situation. Think what would have happened if Steve Bierfeldt hadn't recorded his TSA/LEO encounter. The universe of believers would have been significantly smaller. Originally Posted by SgtScott31 Actually I'm surprised I haven't seen the recent cases here on FT where searches and subsequent arrests have been thrown out due to TSA overstepping the administrative search, or maybe I didn't go through enough of the threads. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014145)
I
It is my understanding that the photography bit is just a ruse to play into the bigger issue of refusing to show ID at the security checkpoint. He did not get arrested for approaching the checkpoint & filming/taking photos. He declined to show ID and whipped out the camera when the TSA supervisor arrived, who subsequently called police. If you could cite a specific state or federal law, it would be much appreciated. |
If such a law exists that prevents photography, I welcome you to cite it. Actually there is no law prohibiting photography in public areas of an airport in the US. When inside a public area of an airport there is no expectation of privacy and it really isn't any different than taking photos from a sidewalk or the street. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority Rules/Regs 2.60.230 Photography. No person shall take still, sound or motion pictures for commercial use on airport property without the approval of the executive director or his designated representative. This does not apply to those taken on lease airport tenant areas for private or promotional purposes. Those who do not have a legitimate reason to be on property and do not have approval from a MNAA rep regarding commercial photography can be asked to leave. Refusal to leave can cause them to be subject to criminal penalties (i.e. trespassing). I'm not a die hard photographer attacker who goes looking for this. I seriously have more important things to attend to, but it is part of my job. It is not uncommon for my officers (I'm a Sgt - hence the screen name) to approach commercial photographers and ask if permission has been received from the communications dept. If not, then it has to be received or they may have to leave property. Now I'm sure 95% of the time there is no issue and it only takes a phone call, but in case there is, the Authority holds the right to remove people from property who have no legitimate reason for being there. If you think I'm wrong, consult with our legal folks. One thing you don't want to do (in my opinion) is test the validity of the rules/regs by tussling with the police and getting yourself arrested. I mean, if you're ok with having a criminal record, stress, time away from family and friends, large financial burden (attorney retainer, court fees regardless of outcome, expungement fees, etc etc) and your name plastered over everything just because you wanted to prove a point and take some snapshots in the airport, all the more power to you. This is even more the case should I bring my notebook and my camera to your airport if the Airport Authority you mentioned is a government entity or an owned-by-government entity, but even if it's a privately-owned airport (and I believe at the moment the only such entity served by commercial airlines is the new airport in Branson, MO) you do not have the authority to tell journalists what they can and cannot cover, and you do not have the authority to decide who is and is not a journalist. Talk to folks in the neighborhood casually about travel, who have no idea what you do. Can you explain why he was charged with concealing identity? |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014826)
I know some states that have a "stop & identify" statute that make it a criminal offense for someone to refuse to identify themselves when they are the subject of a criminal investigation. I'm only assuming he may have refused to show ID also to law enforcement, hence why he was arrested and charged with "concealing identity." We do not have that offense in TN, but those who fail to ID themselves who are being detained for an investigation or arrested can be charged with obstruction under our laws.
The law: 30-22-3. Concealing identity. Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state. Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. |
Originally Posted by SgtScott31
(Post 13014826)
I'm not a die hard photographer attacker who goes looking for this. I seriously have more important things to attend to, but it is part of my job. It is not uncommon for my officers (I'm a Sgt - hence the screen name) to approach commercial photographers and ask if permission has been received from the communications dept. If not, then it has to be received or they may have to leave property. Now I'm sure 95% of the time there is no issue and it only takes a phone call, but in case there is, the Authority holds the right to remove people from property who have no legitimate reason for being there. If you think I'm wrong, consult with our legal folks. One thing you don't want to do (in my opinion) is test the validity of the rules/regs by tussling with the police and getting yourself arrested. I mean, if you're ok with having a criminal record, stress, time away from family and friends, large financial burden (attorney retainer, court fees regardless of outcome, expungement fees, etc etc) and your name plastered over everything just because you wanted to prove a point and take some snapshots in the airport, all the more power to you.
Also, how does the criminal trsspass work? Was he asked to leave and didn't? Seems like it is hard to tresspass if you are there to fly and then you are detained by the police . . . was he trespassing? It seems like the police just looked around and charged him with anything they could think of . . . trumped up charges . . . do you have any other explanation for the tresspass and concealing identity charges? |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:58 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.