ND Sol

I will take you up on your offer to consult with your legal folks. Please provide me with the telephone number and name that I can contact.

I have talked to attorneys with the TSA and for ISP about photography matters and would like to find out the legal position at BNA.

sethb

I suggest you check with your department's attorneys before you end up costing them a lot of money. Photography is legal. Financial gain is legal; you're in the airport for financial gain, aren't you?

And it's quite legal for me to go to an airport and start taking pictures any time I feel like it. There are very strict legal limits on what sort of "repercussions" are allowed.

Now, which statute provides them with the authority to make and enforce that regulation? Please explain specifically how that statute is in accord with the US Constitution and the general rules about photography being protected.

Many places have tried to prevent photography. With very few exceptions (e.g. military bases), they fail in court.

The Constitution allows pretty much anybody to be told anything. It puts limits on what can be enforced.

Besides, I have all the permission I need to take photos for monetary gain. I have my permission, and that recognized by the US Constitution. What more do I need?

Those are the ones who never fly. The ones who fly have problems, but most don't take action at the airport. Want to bet on whether more or less than, say, 90% of travellers object to TSA Security Theater?

The ACLU and its battalions of lawyers say otherwise. Do you really think you can eject a passenger, with a paid-for ticket, from an airport because he's taking photographs and you don't want him to? Or even somebody who is there to meet somebody else? For that matter, taking photographs is itself a legitimate reason to be someplace public, as is "I felt like going there."

"I'm trying to leave. I just want to choose the direction in which I leave."

Do you also know that the US Supreme Court has ruled that stating your name is sufficient to satisfy any such laws? Further, are you claiming that every airline passenger is automatically "the subject of a criminal investigation"? What's the crime? "Flying While Civilian"?

Polar Man

You cite the stop and identify law. In the states that have this the minimum compliance is simply stating your name.

PTravel

Nope -- it's all the First Amendment.

And, sorry, but that's incorrect. As long as an airport is a public or quasi-public area, anything in plain sight is fair game for a photograph, regardless of the intent of the photographer.

And from the standpoint of the Constitution, they're all one in the same.

Sure, that's absolutely appropriate. I hope, however, that you never issued a trespass warning because someone took a picture for a reason that you didn't like.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, millions of Germans had no problems with Nazi policies, either. The fact that most Americans are sheep and neither understand nor care about the constitutional limitations on government power that make the U.S. unique in the world is not justification for TSA's routine excesses.

SgtScott31

I am not implying that anyone is violating laws in regards to failure to show ID to a TSA employee. If it's their policy, it's on them, but I'm assuming that the LEOs asked for ID when they responded to the checkpoint and he refused to show the LEOs. If they felt that a criminal investigation was at-hand (regarding the other offenses applied), then they felt they had the right to also charge him for "concealing identity" per their state statute when he refused to ID himself.

Really? funny, the policy listed by the airport authority is pretty cut and dry regarding commercial photography without consent.


A piece of paper with a name will vary depending on the contact, location, and other factors. Should it be to TSA? probably. I can print a boarding pass via Southwest Airlines and list the letters MD on the end of my name indicating I'm a medical doctor. If the info listed on the boarding pass matches up with date, flight info, and other solid data at the airport during an encounter such as Phil's? probably enough for me personally. If I make contact with a suspicious person walking around the airport fence line and they give me a piece of paper with a name, probably not (you get the idea).

Personally as a LEO, I do not understand the trespass charge in Phil's case, but I wasn't there, so I'm not sure. In my state trespass usually occurs one of two ways: (1) signs posted indicating no trespassing and/or (2) subject is told to leave by property owner or agent of property owner and they refuse.

p.s. It's spelled trespass with one "s"

Really? you couldn't type BNA in google and find it on your own?

The general info number for the Authority is 615-275-1600. They can direct you to the legal office.

If it's private property, I'm not sure what statute is needed for them to be able to make and enforce their own policies. You could walk into a Macys and they could kick you out for no reason at all if you are not buying their merchandise. Same concept with the airport. If you have no legitimate reason for being there, then we can ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, you can be cited/arrested for trespassing. This helps with loitering and vagrancy, although we do have policies on those as well.

I would like to think it's the same reason you don't have permission to come on to my land or in my house to take photos unless invited (or buying a plane ticket/rental car/picking up-dropping off in the airport's case).

Did I say that? hmmmm..don't remember saying or implying that. Passengers have reason to be there (flying out). I could care less if they're taking pictures in the airport, down the concourses, or in the shops. How about one making a movie or TV series? I guess they can come in, set up shop, and video all day long...

Hiibel is used as guidance for those states that have the stop and identify laws. It is also not in stone that simply giving a name will always be enough. I have had plenty of people in my LE career give a name and DOB, only to find out it was false and the person had outstanding warrants. The totality of circumstances at the time of the interaction will decide whether a name only was sufficient ID to satisfy the "stop & identify" or "conceal identity" law that the NM LEOs applied. In Phil's case, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. That will be the decision of the ADAs come court time.

Nope. I'm simply trying to give explanation from the LEO point of view. Since most of the advise/info on this thread is coming from a non-LEO standpoint. I thought my .02 should be added since I'm also in the airport arena.

Ahhh, the ole "sheep" argument. I was waiting on that one. Comparing persons that abide by security requirements to fly in the U.S. against the atrocities that occurred in Germany is, well, ridiculous in my opinion.

SgtScott31

US v. Fofano and US v. Mccarty have already been discussed here.

Ari

Is it your position that one must present ID rather than verbally identify oneself in order to comply with the law? Refer back to the text of the law and give me your honest read based on the actual law as written. Assume he verbally identified himself to the officers; would it be your opinion that he broke the law?

ND Sol

Thanks for being so helpful. So now I had to do the research for an offer that you made.

That number doesn't work. But I think the real reason that you won't give me the correct direct number is because you don't know. The Department of Law for the Metro Government of Nashville takes care of the airport and they are not even located at BNA. Would you care to try again with the attorney that is responsible for this? I will then be able to locate his number. Otherwise your offer is meaningless.

SgtScott31

If you would call during normal business hours, you will get the receptionist at the number I've already provided or you could try 615-275-1675. The Dept of Law for Metro Nashville is not responsible for the Airport Authority. Care to provide info to back that statement up? If you don't want to believe that the airport authority has its own legal department, no skin off my back. If they will not connect you directly to them, then I assume they are only available when we (MNAA and/or it's employees/representatives) are involved in civil/criminal litigation and you meet them in court. They do have offices in BNA, or maybe they just really like coming to the airport since they're in here five days a week.

I thought you and others might want to take a gander at this as well:

http://www.flynashville.com/newsroom/application.pdf

http://www.nashintl.com/newsroom/mediaBooklet.pdf

Here's a prior media announcement for one of our newer attorneys:

http://aci-na.org/index/todaysnews_1106a

I guess I'm making this website and its info up (insert sarcasm here).

Trollkiller

SgtScott31 define "commercial" photography.

SgtScott31

My definition - photography and/or filming for the sole purpose to make money.

ralfp

So a photographer who is doing his/her job because it earns his/her keep and is fun is not engaging in commercial photography. I'd wager a lot of money that no case mentioned in this thread meets that definition.

Even if one were to conduct an exhaustive search of the US, I doubt one would find more than a few people at drugstores taking passport photos.

SgtScott31

My opinion really doesn't matter. The main question is, did he hinder the LEO in any way during the performance of his official duties. If he immediately provided a boarding pass with his name, then the statute may have been met. It depends on all of the involved circumstances surrounding the event and whether the LEO believed he (phil) satisfied the ID requirement. I hate to second-guess other LEOs without actually being in their shoes.

SgtScott31

What matters is the airport authority's definition of commercial filming / photography. Hence why they have a form you have to fill out to do it on their property. Like I said, I could care less, but part of my job is enforcing their policies. That's what they pay me to do.

We're getting off topic. This thread is regarding the arrest in ABQ and not strictly about taking pictures or filming in an airport. Although it may have contributed to the arrest, the initial starting point of this incident was the fact that Phil wanted to see what happened when he refused to show ID and felt that filming the incident was necessary. He wasn't approached and arrested for taking snapshots of the ticket counter.

PhoenixRev

No, it isn't the same concept. Most large airports like BNA or PHX are municipally run or overseen by a board appointed by some government body. There are some restrictions but an airport can't just order you off the property on a whim or because they don't like something you are doing that isn't prohibited by statute or ordinance. An airport "policy" does not carry the force of law.

Besides, how would you ever decide what is or is not a legitimate reason for me to be at an airport? Outside of criminal activity as defined by the law, what could I be doing that is not a legitimate reason for being in an airport? Who would make that determination?