Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
#451
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
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.
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.
I am sure many would be interested to know. If you would enlighten us, then perhaps we can inform you of whether they have been discussed.
#452
Suspended
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,953
I found the following quotes in an article on helicopter parenting on the Time website:
Thank you, Phil, TK, sbm12, Superguy and all those who are protesting in any way whatsoever at TSA checkpoints. You are the beginning of the rebellion against the TSA.
Proven every day at airport check points.
I was struck by the similarities in the dysfunction of helicopter parenting and DHS/TSA.
Article can be found at:
Link
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
#453
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
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.
#454
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)
"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.
"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.
#455
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,151
....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.
#456
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,151
Perhaps a few million - but the majority are now fed up. If you haven't noticed this fact, you're not paying attention. Just because someone doesn't throw a fit at the checkpoint doesn't mean they don't have a problem with the TSA and its nonsense.
#457
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
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.
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.
Last edited by Ari; Dec 18, 2009 at 1:52 pm
#458
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
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.
#459
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
"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.
#460
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Indian Harbour Beach, Fla, USA
Programs: AA Lifetime Plt
Posts: 1,986
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.
#461
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
#462
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY, US
Programs: QF Plat - OW EMD | DL Gold / Starwood Gold
Posts: 6,106
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.
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.
#463
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
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?
#464
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
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.
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.
#465
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
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?
Last edited by Ari; Dec 18, 2009 at 6:13 pm Reason: Ari cannot spell having been raised in the age of spell-check, something FT does not have.