Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Old Dec 18, 09, 4:26 pm
  #466  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
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. [emphasis added]
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.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 4:26 pm
  #467  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy Titanium, Hyatt Explorist, others
Posts: 11,645
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
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.
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.

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.
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.

Originally Posted by SgtScott31
but as far as location is concerned, you can be told to leave at our facility and/or surrounding properties if you do not have permission to take photos for monetary gain.
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?

Originally Posted by SgtScott31
Millions of other Americans have no problems with the current TSA practices in place.
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?

Originally Posted by SgtScott31
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).
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."

Originally Posted by SgtScott31
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.
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"?
sethb is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 4:34 pm
  #468  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Programs: HH-S WS-G
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
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.
You cite the stop and identify law. In the states that have this the minimum compliance is simply stating your name.
Polar Man is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 4:48 pm
  #469  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
I think taking pictures for financial gain without airport permission versus someone refusing to show ID is quite different.
Nope -- it's all the First Amendment.

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.
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.

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

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.
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.

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.
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.
PTravel is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 5:42 pm
  #470  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
I'm at a bit of a loss; what law was violated for not showing an ID to the TSA?

If you could cite a specific state or federal law, it would be much appreciated.
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.

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


Is it your view that presenting a boarding pass with one's name on it is not does not identify oneself?
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).

To be clear, you are talking in the abstract, right? Because this guy was traveling, so he had a reason to be there.

Also, how does the criminal tresspass 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 tresspassing?
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"

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
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.

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.
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.

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?
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).

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?
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...

Do you also know that the US Supreme Court has ruled that stating your name is sufficient to satisfy any such laws?
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.

Further, are you claiming that every airline passenger is automatically "the subject of a criminal investigation"?
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.

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.
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.

Last edited by SgtScott31; Dec 18, 09 at 5:55 pm
SgtScott31 is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 6:04 pm
  #471  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
I will ask again as 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.
US v. Fofano and US v. Mccarty have already been discussed here.
SgtScott31 is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 6:16 pm
  #472  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,053
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
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.
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?
Ari is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 6:27 pm
  #473  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
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.
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.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 6:48 pm
  #474  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
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.
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).

Last edited by SgtScott31; Dec 18, 09 at 7:24 pm
SgtScott31 is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 6:52 pm
  #475  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
SgtScott31 define "commercial" photography.
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 6:55 pm
  #476  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by Trollkiller View Post
SgtScott31 define "commercial" photography.
My definition - photography and/or filming for the sole purpose to make money.
SgtScott31 is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 7:16 pm
  #477  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, ORD, CVG, NYC
Programs: Former UA 1K, National Exec. Elite
Posts: 5,486
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
My definition - photography and/or filming for the sole purpose to make money.
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.
ralfp is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 7:19 pm
  #478  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
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?
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.

Last edited by SgtScott31; Dec 18, 09 at 7:29 pm
SgtScott31 is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 7:23 pm
  #479  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by ralfp View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by SgtScott31; Dec 18, 09 at 7:29 pm
SgtScott31 is offline  
Old Dec 18, 09, 7:31 pm
  #480  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Originally Posted by SgtScott31 View Post
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.
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?
PhoenixRev is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: