ND Sol

I am at least glad to now know that there is a separate legal department, but that number is just another main number for the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, which is of no help.

You offered for us to "consult with [your] legal folks", but yet now you won't give us a name and direct number and even think that they may not be willing to talk to us. So at this point your offer is hollow.

So why don't you make contact on Monday with the appropriate attorney and then give out the name and number for us to contact him. I will even take a PM with the name and number.

Trollkiller

What matters is the legal definition of "commercial" filming.

Easy rule of thumb is this, is the shoot for a movie or commercial? Yes, then it is a commercial shoot. Does the shoot involve a model? Yes, then it is a commercial shoot.

Is the subject "newsworthy" (very broad definition) then the shoot is non commercial even if the photographer makes money off of it.

Ari

Sounds like a trumped up charge, just like the trespass. Those two charges will probably be dismissed.

cepheid

Airport policy isn't law, however. PTravel was talking about the law. Just because the airport has a specific policy doesn't mean that said policy would necessarily hold up when challenged in court.

If the airport is a public (read: government-owned) facility, then no, the same concept does not apply.

Your land and your house are private property; the airport is not.

Very well, how about comparing it to something like Japanese internment camps during the McCarthy era? All of that was done in the name of security, as well, and millions of Americans were perfectly content with (even supportive of) that, as well. McCarthyism is, in fact, not all that different from what is happening now, both at the airport and elsewhere.

The comparison to the Holocaust is only "ridiculous" on the surface, because of the magnitude of the Holocaust and the extent to which it was carried; it is naďve, at best, to ignore the foundation upon which those atrocities were laid. The very beginning of the Holocaust was merely the institution of discriminatory policy, which was accepted by the people (including those against whom it discriminated!) as status quo and "not that big a deal." Some of those policies were billed as security measures, too. While one is hopeful that we would never let situations escalate to the same level as back then, it's imperative to remember that the road that led to Holocaust started out not all that dissimilar from today's situation.

(PTravel, I have to say that reading your Godwin paragraph was eerie, because it is almost verbatim to what I was thinking of posting earlier today.)

ND Sol

Well we know that this statement is not legally enforceable and, as such, has a chilling effect on the rights of photographers:

SgtScott31

2.60.220 No person may loiter or loaf on any part of the airport property. If a loitering or loafing person is told by a safety and security officer to move on or leave the airport property, he shall do so.

Vagrants, baggage thieves, pickpockets, shoplifters, and sexual preds come to mind of those who come to the airport who have no legitimate reason to be here.

As far as determining a legitimate reason, yes it's difficult to do, but someone hanging around for a real long time tend to grab the attention of airline employees, skycaps, paranoid passengers and police officers. Obviously if you're not flying, you are not getting beyond security. If you hang out in the open forward-areas long enough, you get noticed, at least in an airport of this size.

There is a board of directors in which the Mayor of Nashville sits on and the airport president/CEO answers to the board of directors. It is a quasi-government body, but it is still private property open to the public for the purpose of air transit.

The real argument here between the majority is whether or not the airport is "private" enough to enforce its own rules and regulations as another private entity would be able to. Many here say "no." I've worked here just under 10 years and I have enforced state and local laws as well as airport rules/regulations. If you care to challenge the authority of those regulations and their legality, that's fine by me. Everything is open for interpretation and the civil/criminal courts will have the last say in the matter. As I mentioned in Phil's case, if you have the time, money, and stress-handling to attempt to challenge it by being arrested of filing your own civil suit, that's your perrogative.

ralfp

All of those could be pax, or want to patronize a pre-security business, or admire the beautiful architecture... the list is quite long.

Besides, most people in an airport are loitering or loaf[ing?], or at least appear to be engaged in such [non]activities. How would one distinguish illegal loitering from legal waiting around?

ND Sol

I would consider that ordinance on its face to be unconstitutionally vague based on Chicago v. Morales. So now that is two strikes.

That is the same discredited argument you have made before. BNA is public. It is a government-run operation. It is not private no matter how much you want to think so. It is much closer to a public street than a private business on what can be restricted.

SgtScott31

I don't make it a point to throw out names of persons on public internet forums if they're not already available to you on the internet, especially those in the hirearchy of where I am employed. Stick with the numbers I gave you and you will get what you need during the appropriate hours. You should know that most attorneys don't work after hours. I am not avoiding the situation. I personally have never sued the airport or challenged the policies which are in place, so I don't know who is the direct contact person you will speak to regarding the issue. I would like to think it will be someone in the legal department, but it may be someone specific and I am not going to overstep my bounds and take a guess. I'm sure you can wait 12 hours and find out for yourself.

Very true.

Japanese internment camps, Nazi Germany, whatever the case may be, the opinion of the majority is normally the common denominator in these instances. The majority opinion of Americans (in my opinion) is that, yes, TSA and some of their policies are a pain, but not enough to sway everyone from flying or definitely not a belief that they're stripping us of our Constitutional freedoms on a daily basis as so many here tend to imply.

LoganTSO

I'm invoking Godwin's Law... enough with the reductio ad Hitlerum.

bocastephen

I think it bears repeating - a public airport (one owned and operated by a state, municipal or other government, funded and operating with taxpayer money) is public, not private property.

Outside of FAA (and unfortunately, TSA) regulations pertaining to what can occur on airport property, the terminal (non-sterile side), access roads and other public spaces which are not part of the AOA are public property.

This issue was tested in court eons ago - I believe it was LAX that tried to ban Hare Krishna and other groups from handing out pamphlets in the terminal. They went to court, and the ruling came down that the terminal area was a public space, owned by the public and those groups could hand out pamphlets and setup tables to do whatever.

Trollkiller

second

greentips

Sarge,

I can do better for you. It is not, repeat not private property. It is not Macys or Sears. It is public property. From the FAA records:
(FAA Airport/Facility Directory 17 DEC 2009 -- My copy just arrived in the mail)

KBNA ownership information:

Ownership: Publicly-owned
Owner: METRO NASHVILLE ARPT AUTHManager: RAUL REGALADO
Airports have often attempted to enforce an unenforceable rule which has cost them literally millions of dollars. (See Administrator v. Daley, U.S.A v. City of Santa Monica, etc.)

Obviously, but I can take a picture of your house and the inside of your house as long as I am a.) on the public right of way, b.) not obstructing traffic and c.) your blinds are open. I may not set one foot on your property without your permission. Nor may you, especially you, as a cop, set even one foot on my property without my permission or a warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction. The difference is that your house and land and mine are indeed private property. Private airports do exist. The owners of these airports are frequently quite restrictive on whom they will allow to use those airports. Since they are private and public money is not available for them, they are free to do this. BNA is not one of them. Nor is ABQ.

Fortunately for the general public, what a person in authority would like to think is occasionally contrary to the laws that govern their behavior. Authorities are thus banned from acting on those thoughts.

Don't want me taking pictures? Then you have to put up a fence. But I'd check with Google Earth and the EOS satellites too, since they have also taken a quite detailed picture of your house. And that's on the internet.

Your advice in interesting and your perspective is appreciated, but airports are public property, paid for by the public through taxes. The airport authority is certainly free to promulgate any unlawful regulation it wishes, but does so at their peril.

I am not conversant in TN accommodations laws, but the public accommodations laws in my state are exquisitely clear. You may not deny a member of the public access to public or property held out to the public, unless that person is disturbing the peace or hindering the owner's use of his property for its lawful purposes. This includes Macy's and university libraries. (Something that dates back to the "separate but equal days" of the '60s).

ND Sol

Then don't make offers that you are unwilling to follow through with. You said to contact your legal folks and now you don't even know who it would be, much less that they will be willing to talk to me without calling directly. You are avoiding the situation and have been completely unhelpful.

I even offered for you to PM the name and number to me, but you think that it is better that I dial the number you gave me, which is just a computer with nine options, none of which get one directly to who I would need to speak to.

12 hours? They will be working on Saturday?

SgtScott31

Two strikes? I guess you sit on the US Supreme Court and have already decided that the Morales case is exactly like the policy in place at the airport, applies in the exact same standard, hence making it unconstitutional. Wow, I didn't know someone could do that over the internet. Tell you what, come down and get arrested for loitering and file for a dismissal using Morales as your case law and we'll see where it goes. Given the fact that this is occurring in an airport and not some public park or section 8 housing, I bet the odds would be against you, but that has yet to be determined. If you read in the Morales case the main issue of the law was that it was.."impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties..." I don't see how removing you from the airport if you're not flying is a restriction on your personal liberties, buy hey, go for it. You should know better than attempt to put one SCOTUS decision on here and expect it to apply to any loitering law across the US, especially in a secure environment such as an airport.

110% your opinion, which doesn't mean squat if you don't have TN case law or precedent to back it up. It is not so-much public as you want to think it is and that's where have always disagreed. You don't work here, you don't live here, you have not tried cases under TN or Nashville/Davidson County law, yet you seem to be an expert on the subject. Until I have a TN, 6th Circuit Appellate or US Supreme Court that tells me otherwise, your opinion holds no weight and I will continue to take whatever actions are necessary under what is in the fine print. Laws are changed every day and case law determines my actions as a police officer. Telling me our airport policies are illegal or unconstitutional without anything to back it up but assumptions is not really ruffling my feathers.