Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
May 28, 2010, 1:32 pm
#646
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
He didn't need to identify himself. Note that the Albuquerque ordinance was enacted pre-Brown and the city council likely either didn't know of or ignored the Supreme Court's ruling. There is no reasonable suspicion standard stated in the ordinance and allows the officer to simply use the catch all of "discharging duties." That doesn't pass muster.
Now there's a whole other issue injected-- and he is on tape sounding like an immature child to a jury. Terrible.
May 28, 2010, 1:43 pm
#647
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
I don't understand why you keep referring to me playing a game. I have not played a game with anyone.
I still believe that Phil was properly identified to the police.
Besides, on the audio recording the police officer said he was arresting Phil for being stupid, not for lack of identification.
I still believe that Phil was properly identified to the police.
Besides, on the audio recording the police officer said he was arresting Phil for being stupid, not for lack of identification.
You can believe what you want to believe. However, it appears to be in compliance with the law in NM you as an individual have to identify yourself to law enforcement not have someone else do it for you.
I tend to agree with the officer. Mr Mecok was being stupid. He entered into this encounter without a full understanding of what is required of him under Albuquerque NM law. He understood his standing with TSA just fine. However, once it was escalated and NM Law Enforcement got involved it changed things considerably. To at the very least to avoid the charge of concealing identity all he had to do was verbally give his name. He chose not to do that. It is unwise to play the flex your rights game unless you have a clear understanding of the laws and procedures in place at the venue you plan to flex your rights at. You do not gain this understanding via internet forums. You do your research, in this case, with a competent criminal lawyer in the area that you intend to make your point BEFORE you do anything else.
FB
May 28, 2010, 2:00 pm
#648
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
The you I am referring to is the collective use of the word. The collective use is referring to the public at large.
You can believe what you want to believe. However, it appears to be in compliance with the law in NM you as an individual have to identify yourself to law enforcement not have someone else do it for you.
I tend to agree with the officer. Mr Mecok was being stupid. He entered into this encounter without a full understanding of what is required of him under Albuquerque NM law. He understood his standing with TSA just fine. However, once it was escalated and NM Law Enforcement got involved it changed things considerably. To at the very least to avoid the charge of concealing identity all he had to do was verbally give his name. He chose not to do that. It is unwise to play the flex your rights game unless you have a clear understanding of the laws and procedures in place at the venue you plan to flex your rights at. You do not gain this understanding via internet forums. You do your research, in this case, with a competent criminal lawyer in the area that you intend to make your point BEFORE you do anything else.
FB
You can believe what you want to believe. However, it appears to be in compliance with the law in NM you as an individual have to identify yourself to law enforcement not have someone else do it for you.
I tend to agree with the officer. Mr Mecok was being stupid. He entered into this encounter without a full understanding of what is required of him under Albuquerque NM law. He understood his standing with TSA just fine. However, once it was escalated and NM Law Enforcement got involved it changed things considerably. To at the very least to avoid the charge of concealing identity all he had to do was verbally give his name. He chose not to do that. It is unwise to play the flex your rights game unless you have a clear understanding of the laws and procedures in place at the venue you plan to flex your rights at. You do not gain this understanding via internet forums. You do your research, in this case, with a competent criminal lawyer in the area that you intend to make your point BEFORE you do anything else.
FB
I would certainly hope the defense asks the officer if he arrested Phil per his statement then later changed the reason for arrest so he didn't look stupid himself.
I think that one statement by the police officers discredits everything else he did.
May 28, 2010, 2:44 pm
#649
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Is being stupid a reason to arrest someone?
I would certainly hope the defense asks the officer if he arrested Phil per his statement then later changed the reason for arrest so he didn't look stupid himself.
I think that one statement by the police officers discredits everything else he did.
I would certainly hope the defense asks the officer if he arrested Phil per his statement then later changed the reason for arrest so he didn't look stupid himself.
I think that one statement by the police officers discredits everything else he did.
Getting arrested for violating a law that could be avoided by simply verbally telling a Law Enforcement officer your name is in my opinion kind of stupid.
People do stupid things all the time that get them arrested. Are there a legitimate laws to charge them with? Yes, absolutely but what do you think the real reason is that the person finds themselves in trouble.
Do I think Mr. Mocek set out to give anybody a hard time? Yes, I do. I think he set out to give TSA a hard time concerning their ID policy. I think he was within his rights to do exactly that. However, I don't think he did his research concerning where he was when he did that. Once local police got involved he was in over his head concerning local and state laws. Once you (collective use) start dealing with Local Law Enforcement and the DA's that prosecute the cases you (collective use) must remember they deal with these laws everyday. Unless you (collective use) do the same they are going to have a significant advantage over you (collective use). The way to neutralize that advantage is to consult with a criminal lawyer in that venue before anything is done. There are too many people getting there information from various internet forums from people that really have no idea what they are talking about. This is because what is legal and correct in one area may not be the same somewhere else.
FB
Last edited by Firebug4; May 28, 2010 at 3:57 pm
May 28, 2010, 2:52 pm
#650
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
Nope, being stupid is not a reason to arrest someone.
Getting arrested for violating a law that could be avoided by simply verbally telling a Law Enforcement officer your name is in my opinion kind of stupid.
People do stupid things all the time that get them arrested. Is there a legitimate laws to charge them with? Yes, absolutely but what do you think the real reason the person finds themselves in trouble.
Do I think Mr. Mocek set out to give anybody a hard time? Yes, I do. I think he set out to give TSA a hard time concerning their ID policy. I think he was within his rights to do exactly that. However, I don't think he did his research concerning where he was when he did that. Once local police got involved he was in over his head concerning local and state laws. Once you (collective use) start dealing with Local Law Enforcement and the DA's that prosecute the cases you (collective use) must remember they deal with these laws everyday. Unless you (collective use) do the same they are going to have a significant advantage over you (collective use). The way to neutralize that advantage is to consult with a criminal lawyer in that venue before anything is done. There are too many people getting there information from various internet forums from people that really have no idea what they are talking about. This is because what is legal and correct in one area may not be the same somewhere else.
FB
Getting arrested for violating a law that could be avoided by simply verbally telling a Law Enforcement officer your name is in my opinion kind of stupid.
People do stupid things all the time that get them arrested. Is there a legitimate laws to charge them with? Yes, absolutely but what do you think the real reason the person finds themselves in trouble.
Do I think Mr. Mocek set out to give anybody a hard time? Yes, I do. I think he set out to give TSA a hard time concerning their ID policy. I think he was within his rights to do exactly that. However, I don't think he did his research concerning where he was when he did that. Once local police got involved he was in over his head concerning local and state laws. Once you (collective use) start dealing with Local Law Enforcement and the DA's that prosecute the cases you (collective use) must remember they deal with these laws everyday. Unless you (collective use) do the same they are going to have a significant advantage over you (collective use). The way to neutralize that advantage is to consult with a criminal lawyer in that venue before anything is done. There are too many people getting there information from various internet forums from people that really have no idea what they are talking about. This is because what is legal and correct in one area may not be the same somewhere else.
FB
May 28, 2010, 3:40 pm
#651
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
I understand what you are saying but the question I am asking is specifically this; will the officers recorded comment that he was arresting Phil for being stupid have any bearing on the case? It seems to me that the officer articulated an invalid reason for an arrest.
FB
May 28, 2010, 3:44 pm
#652
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 70
May 28, 2010, 4:36 pm
#653
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA Platinum, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 1,177
In general, when a LEO asks for someones ID, can the person respond with "Is that a lawful order, or a request?". Wouldn't that be the best way to deal with any such request for ID by a LEO. Seems to me that would make it pretty clear-cut. Or, does the LEO then deem them uncooperative to identify oneself and then just arrest them for simply asking?
May 28, 2010, 9:00 pm
#654
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
The surveillance cameras in Cal Anderson Park are part of a pilot program designed to test their viability as a crime fighting tool. However, police have only requested to look at the footage a few times since the City Council approved the program in June 2008, and the footage has not been used in a single conviction. The program sunsetted in January and the cameras are supposed to be turned off, but they still may be running.
Phil Mocek, who attended the meeting and has been active in opposing the Cal Anderson cameras, told the City Council Parks and Seattle Center Committee at its May 3 meeting that he requested footage taken by the cameras for this year and received it, proving, he said, that they are still turned on and recording after the scheduled sunset date.
Jim Pugel, Assistant Chief of the Seattle Police Department, argued in favor of keeping the cameras turned on — though he thought they had been turned off in January. Pugel said that, because the cameras are already in place, the cost of running them would be negligible and that they can still be useful to law enforecement. No one at the hearing suggested expanding the camera surveillance program.
Brian Alseth, Director of the Technology and Liberty Program for the ACLU of Washington, argued that, because there was no evidence they were effective, the cameras should stay off. He said that as this pilot program has ended, the decision should be made to either go forward with the whole program or pull the plug entirely. Alseth said he is concerned that people tend to take a defeatist attitude toward the prevalence of surveillance and just say, “How do you fight it?” He said having a few cameras in Cal Anderson might just push some crime to other areas, and that it would be a bad idea for Seattle to install a city-wide surveillance system, like in London.
The committee did not make any decisions about the cameras at the meeting.
Phil Mocek, who attended the meeting and has been active in opposing the Cal Anderson cameras, told the City Council Parks and Seattle Center Committee at its May 3 meeting that he requested footage taken by the cameras for this year and received it, proving, he said, that they are still turned on and recording after the scheduled sunset date.
Jim Pugel, Assistant Chief of the Seattle Police Department, argued in favor of keeping the cameras turned on — though he thought they had been turned off in January. Pugel said that, because the cameras are already in place, the cost of running them would be negligible and that they can still be useful to law enforecement. No one at the hearing suggested expanding the camera surveillance program.
Brian Alseth, Director of the Technology and Liberty Program for the ACLU of Washington, argued that, because there was no evidence they were effective, the cameras should stay off. He said that as this pilot program has ended, the decision should be made to either go forward with the whole program or pull the plug entirely. Alseth said he is concerned that people tend to take a defeatist attitude toward the prevalence of surveillance and just say, “How do you fight it?” He said having a few cameras in Cal Anderson might just push some crime to other areas, and that it would be a bad idea for Seattle to install a city-wide surveillance system, like in London.
The committee did not make any decisions about the cameras at the meeting.
I wonder where the "polite" adjective came from. Doesn't sound like a news reporter was watching.
May 29, 2010, 6:03 am
#655
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Sounds to me like he had (has) a higher calling than himself -- a character trait I happen to respect.
May 29, 2010, 8:40 am
#656
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DCA / WAS
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,388
AmEx canceled the bogus charges - but provided little support to the prosecutor in Miami (that's right, the perps sent the info to colleagues in Miami, who went to town... $20,000 in 3 days).
They also used the ID to set up fake phone & electric services, including cellphones. I discovered that after Verizon (then Bell Atlantic) turned it over for collection, several thousand dollars later. BA/Verizon was not helpful, and it took a couple of months and legal threats to make the collection company go away.
But wait, that's not all: 7 years later the same collection company sold the debt to another company but failed to flag that the matter was ID theft/fraud and that it had been resolved. It took another month of arguing with the new company, copying my correspondence to the attorney general of the state involved and the FTC, and submitting copies of the original resolution correspondence to the new collection company to make the issue go away.
Never again.
One Hilton property told me that they were requested to do so by the government so they would "know who's staying there if asked by LEO". Another - and they walked me when I refused, but didn't pay for the alternate accommodations - tried to tell me it was a state law (I debunked that pretty quickly, turned out there was a LOCAL law that required the hotel to get ID for CASH customers.... said ID was specifically not required for credit card customers).
May 29, 2010, 10:51 am
#657
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
On the issue of the Concealing Identity charge, usually the word "conceal" requires some action, not an omission. When I look up the word in a dictionary, it says "to keep from being seen, found, observed, or discovered; hide.". In other words, to take active steps to prevent something from being discovered. If you're in my house and forget where you left your cellphone and I've happened to see it and you ask me where it is and I don't tell you where it is, have I "concealed" your phone? I don't think so: all I've done is refused to help you find it. "Refuse to divulge" and "conceal" are not synonyms, but mean very different things.
And the statute also requires intent to deceive or to interfere with law enforcement. Since the police had his correct identity, it's hard to see how not "confirming" it would do any of those things. So the prosecution can't prove either element of the charge: the "conceal" part or the "intent" part.
Moreover, if the question "what's your name?" could be interpreted (as some have posted here) to be "are you the person who's name is on this boarding pass?", answering that question could incriminate oneself under the "concealing" statute. So one has an absolute Fifth Amendment right to chose not to answer it.
The last two sentences in Hiibel actually deal with this issue:
This may well be such a case.
As to what a jury might do, I almost see that as irrelevant: the issues here are much more legal than factual. All the "action" here would be in the appeal if there's a conviction. Let's assume the jury accepts all the prosecution's evidence as factual and decides that Phil did, in fact, do everything asserted in the police statements. There's a real question of whether those actions are a violation of the law (as interpreted consistently with the Constitution).
Although people tend to describe a trial as determining whether the defendant broke the law, that's not actually the jury's function. Ignoring the issue of nullification for this purpose, the jury's function is to determine whether, as a factual matter, the defendent did those things alleged by the prosecution. If they rule that he or she did not, the case ends there. But if they rule that the defendant did those things, there's still the question of whether those things violate the law as written, whether the law is being interpreted correctly, and whether the law is constitutional. Those things are up to the courts, including appeals courts.
And to give my opinion on a related issue: I believe that a Terry stop did occur. However, Hiibel only applies if there's a statue that requires the person to identify oneself. I don't believe that anybody has shown such a statute (the "Conceal" statute isn't it, in my opinion), but even if one does exist, Phil met the requirements to "identify oneself" by presenting a boarding pass giving his correct name. He has no legal obligations beyond that point.
And the statute also requires intent to deceive or to interfere with law enforcement. Since the police had his correct identity, it's hard to see how not "confirming" it would do any of those things. So the prosecution can't prove either element of the charge: the "conceal" part or the "intent" part.
Moreover, if the question "what's your name?" could be interpreted (as some have posted here) to be "are you the person who's name is on this boarding pass?", answering that question could incriminate oneself under the "concealing" statute. So one has an absolute Fifth Amendment right to chose not to answer it.
The last two sentences in Hiibel actually deal with this issue:
Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow. We need not resolve those questions here.
As to what a jury might do, I almost see that as irrelevant: the issues here are much more legal than factual. All the "action" here would be in the appeal if there's a conviction. Let's assume the jury accepts all the prosecution's evidence as factual and decides that Phil did, in fact, do everything asserted in the police statements. There's a real question of whether those actions are a violation of the law (as interpreted consistently with the Constitution).
Although people tend to describe a trial as determining whether the defendant broke the law, that's not actually the jury's function. Ignoring the issue of nullification for this purpose, the jury's function is to determine whether, as a factual matter, the defendent did those things alleged by the prosecution. If they rule that he or she did not, the case ends there. But if they rule that the defendant did those things, there's still the question of whether those things violate the law as written, whether the law is being interpreted correctly, and whether the law is constitutional. Those things are up to the courts, including appeals courts.
And to give my opinion on a related issue: I believe that a Terry stop did occur. However, Hiibel only applies if there's a statue that requires the person to identify oneself. I don't believe that anybody has shown such a statute (the "Conceal" statute isn't it, in my opinion), but even if one does exist, Phil met the requirements to "identify oneself" by presenting a boarding pass giving his correct name. He has no legal obligations beyond that point.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; May 29, 2010 at 3:56 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
May 29, 2010, 11:38 am
#658
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
On the issue of the Concealing Identity charge, usually the word "conceal" requires some action, not an omission. When I look up the word in a dictionary, it says "to keep from being seen, found, observed, or discovered; hide.". In other words, to take active steps to prevent something from being discovered. If you're in my house and forget where you left your cellphone and I've happened to see it and you ask me where it is and I don't tell you where it is, have I "concealed" your phone? I don't think so: all I've done is refused to help you find it. "Refuse to divulge" and "conceal" are not synonyms, but mean very different things.
And the statute also requires intent to deceive or to interfere with law enforcement. Since the police had his correct identity, it's hard to see how not "confirming" it would do any of those things. So the prosecution can't prove either element of the charge: the "conceal" part or the "intent" part.
Moreover, if the question "what's your name?" could be interpreted (as some have posted here) to be "are you the person who's name is on this boarding pass?", answering that question could incriminate oneself under the "concealing" statute. So one has an absolute Fifth Amendment right to chose not to answer it.
The last two sentences in Hiibel actually deal with this issue:
This may well be such a case.
And the statute also requires intent to deceive or to interfere with law enforcement. Since the police had his correct identity, it's hard to see how not "confirming" it would do any of those things. So the prosecution can't prove either element of the charge: the "conceal" part or the "intent" part.
Moreover, if the question "what's your name?" could be interpreted (as some have posted here) to be "are you the person who's name is on this boarding pass?", answering that question could incriminate oneself under the "concealing" statute. So one has an absolute Fifth Amendment right to chose not to answer it.
The last two sentences in Hiibel actually deal with this issue:
This may well be such a case.
This tactic has been used many times by individuals that refused to give their Identity to Law Enforcement because they knew they had warrants. It has never worked for them either. The argument that you are posting was the one of the dissenting judges opinion which for this discussion is on the wrong side of the issue.
The state was upheld in Hibel and Hibel was convicted under a failure to identify. I would caution the practice of using the dictionary to support legal arguments. A courtroom is not an English classroom. It just doesn't work that way.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=03-5554
FB
May 29, 2010, 11:47 am
#659
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
May 29, 2010, 11:47 am
#660
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
As to what a jury might do, I almost see that as irrelevant: the issues here are much more legal than factual. All the "action" here would be in the appeal if there's a conviction. Let's assume the jury accepts all the prosecution's evidence as factual and decides that Phil did, in fact, do everything asserted in the police statements. There's a real question of whether those actions are a violation of the law (as interpreted consistently with the Constitution).
Although people tend to describe a trial as determining whether the defendant broke the law, that's not actually the jury's function. Ignoring the issue of nullification for this purpose, the jury's function is to determine whether, as a factual matter, the defendent did those things alleged by the prosecution. If they rule that he or she did not, the case ends there. But if they rule that the defendant did those things, there's still the question of whether those things violate the law as written, whether the law is being interpreted correctly, and whether the law is constitutional. Those things are up to the courts, including appeals courts.
And to give my opinion on a related issue: I believe that a Terry stop did occur. However, Hiibel only applies if there's a statue that requires the person to identify oneself. I don't believe that anybody has shown such a statute (the "Conceal" statute isn't it, in my opinion), but even if one does exist, Phil met the requirements to "identify oneself" by presenting a boarding pass giving his correct name. He has no legal obligations beyond that point.
Although people tend to describe a trial as determining whether the defendant broke the law, that's not actually the jury's function. Ignoring the issue of nullification for this purpose, the jury's function is to determine whether, as a factual matter, the defendent did those things alleged by the prosecution. If they rule that he or she did not, the case ends there. But if they rule that the defendant did those things, there's still the question of whether those things violate the law as written, whether the law is being interpreted correctly, and whether the law is constitutional. Those things are up to the courts, including appeals courts.
And to give my opinion on a related issue: I believe that a Terry stop did occur. However, Hiibel only applies if there's a statue that requires the person to identify oneself. I don't believe that anybody has shown such a statute (the "Conceal" statute isn't it, in my opinion), but even if one does exist, Phil met the requirements to "identify oneself" by presenting a boarding pass giving his correct name. He has no legal obligations beyond that point.
Phil should have done his research before he decided to go to NM to Flex his Rights.
FB