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

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 2, 2010, 6:09 pm
  #691  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by studentff
Is there a snail mail address to which we can send cash / money-order donations to the legal defense fund? I can't afford to have a charge from "Cannabis Defense Coalition" show up on my CC, nor do I particularly support the cause of that organization. But I'm all in favor of the casue covered in this thread and would like to provide some small amount of support against this abuse in ABQ.

Feel free to PM me if you don't want to post. Thanks.
Cannabis Defence Coalition? That is where the link for the defense fund goes? That is kinda of interesting.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2010, 6:30 pm
  #692  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
Originally Posted by greentips
What if it was a terrorist operation using my ID?
These days you would end up on the NFL.
n4zhg is offline  
Old Jun 2, 2010, 6:35 pm
  #693  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Originally Posted by Firebug4
Cannabis Defence Coalition? That is where the link for the defense fund goes? That is kinda of interesting.

FB
Phil appears to be a (the?) spokesman for the CDC:

http://cdc.coop/5798

SB 5798 was supported by the Cannabis Defense Coalition, a Seattle-based activist group that tracks medical cannabis prosecutions in the state. "Cannabis is an effective, safe and natural medicine," said group spokesman Phil Mocek. "Patients with symptoms relieved by medical cannabis deserve the protection of our law, whether they see a regular doctor or a naturopathic physician. This bill will help increase safe access to this therapeutic, plant-based medicine."
They are coordinating the fund.
Ari is offline  
Old Jun 3, 2010, 2:21 am
  #694  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
mailing address for defense fund donations; canna-what?

Originally Posted by studentff
Is there a snail mail address to which we can send cash / money-order donations to the legal defense fund?
I'd be grateful for any such contributions. They can be sent directly to my attorneys' office:

Phil Mocek legal defense
Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan PA
20 FIRST PLAZA CTR NW STE 700
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87102-5802
Originally Posted by studentff
I can't afford to have a charge from "Cannabis Defense Coalition" show up on my CC, nor do I particularly support the cause of that organization.
I think it would show on your card as Paypal, but the Web-based payments are being accepted using a CDC account, and that might show, too.

Originally Posted by studentff
But I'm all in favor of the casue covered in this thread and would like to provide some small amount of support against this abuse in ABQ.
Thank you very much.

Originally Posted by Firebug4
Cannabis Defence Coalition? That is where the link for the defense fund goes? That is kinda of interesting.
I was returning from representing CDC at Drug Policy Alliance's International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Albuquerque when I was arrested at the airport. The event was attended over one thousand people, including New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Governor Gary Johnson.

I believe we should be able to travel within the country without asking for permission from or identifying ourselves to our government, that marijuana prohibition is wasteful, harmful, and ineffective, and that it is immoral to lock someone in a cage because of what he chooses to put in his body. I fully accept that there are people who agree with me on some issues but not on others.

This quote from our November 18, 2009, cdc-alerts newsletter explains nicely how freedom to travel and drug policy reform (or any political activism) are linked:

========================================
========================================
3. Phil free, and the American right to travel
========================================
========================================

Our tabling volunteers are finally home from the International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After politely declining to show his ID to a TSA screener, and recording the situation, Phil was arrested by Albuquerque police, held incommunicado for 34 hours, and charged with disorderly conduct, concealing his identity, disobeying a police officer, and criminal trespass. Jesse, who showed his ID, was driven in a police cruiser to the edge of the airport, dropped off, and told that he was banned from the compound for 24 hours.

We finally managed to post bail for Phil, and he and Jesse returned home last night. The guy at the Southwest Airlines desk recognized him, called him a hero, and with managerial help, provided new tickets free of charge. The story has made it onto a number of security blogs and frequent flyer forums, which have been refreshingly supportive. Thus far, we've received over two dozen online donations for Phil's bail and criminal defense. The internet bailed Phil out.

Question: What does this have to do with marijuana reform?

I (Ben) have been threatened with eviction from public parks for holding political pot posters. To me, that is a first amendment issue, not really a drug policy issue. But when I can't *speak freely* about drug policy reform, I think we have an issue that affects drug policy reform.

Americans have a right to travel freely between the states, without government interference. The United States Supreme Court has reiterated this in United States v. Wheeler (1920), stating that Americans possess a right, "inherent in citizens of all free governments," to freedom of movement, a right very much related to freedom of association and freedom of expression. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wheeler)

Similar to my pot poster analogy, I (Ben) have not flown domestically since June 2008, when TSA created a policy that basically says, "if you lose your ID and cooperate, we'll let you travel, but if you refuse to show your ID, we will restrict your travel." I believe this is a clear violation of the Wheeler case, and my right to travel freely. But, as someone who's been stuck, on a Sunday, in an airport in a distant city, unsure if I'll ever make it home, wishing I could call someone for help, quite frankly I can't handle the stress of it any more; I feel somewhat beaten by TSA and the terrorists who caused our freedoms to disappear.

For the last 18 months, I have been unable to attend political conferences because of this. I want to, but I either need to 1) quash my belief that I can travel freely without showing my papers to the federal government, 2) be ready for a battle, or 3) don't fly. I don't feel supported enough to battle, and I'm not yet willing to give up my belief in constitutional freedom of movement, so for now I choose to not fly.

I would be forever grateful to Phil if he was willing to be the test case on this, someone willing to stand up for my right to attend a political conference without identifying myself to federal agents. In my mind, it's not specifically about pot -- though he was at a drug policy conference, representing a cannabis activism group, and carrying a bunch of marijuana t-shirts -- it's about underlying freedoms which are the foundation on top of which we are able to build our activism.


Originally Posted by Ari
Phil appears to be a (the?) spokesman for the CDC:
I'm a spokesman. I'm a member and have served on our board of directors since January. I got home about an hour ago from a meeting of the Washington State Medical Quality Assurance Commission, where we presented our case for adding neuropathic pain to the list of conditions which qualify one for the medicinal use of marijuana in Washington State.

The CDC is a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofit member cooperative focused on cannabis activism in Washington State. Our core activism is tracking court cases around the state where medical marijuana patients are being prosecuted. Our membership has taken on numerous other projects, including:
  • Hired veteran lobbyist Lonnie Johns-Brown to work for passage of Washington Senate Bill 5798 to expand our medical marijuana law to include naturopathic doctors, phsycians' assistants, and nurse practitioners. Worked with bill sponsor and 36th District Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles to successfully pass the bill, which was signed into law by Governor Gregoire in April, 2010. http://cdc.coop/lobby
  • Sent a letter to every county sheriff, prosecutor and public defenders' office in the state informing them about the new Department of Health medical marijuana regulations, and reminding them about the overwhelming public support for medical marijuana. http://cdc.coop/prosecutor_mailing
  • Filed a 1700-page public disclosure request with the Department of Corrections to determine how their parolee medical marijuana policy came about. The documents have shed light on a specific medical marijuana case where it appears DOC violated the law and attempted to cover it up. http://cdc.coop/doc
  • Filed public disclosure requests with the state Department of Health for records of medical marijuana related investigations of doctors, after hearing about cases in which law enforcement were using the DOH complaint process to harass doctors. http://cdc.coop/doh_investigations
  • Set up a "freedom to travel" defense fund for a CDC member (me) arrested at the Albuquerque Airport for failing to show identification to federal TSA agents, and for recording with prior permission. http://cdc.coop/tsa_arrest
  • Compiled and printed our Courtroom Observation Companion, the quintessential guide to medical marijuana in Washington State.
  • Created the Washington State Potline, a toll-free medical marijuana hotline where one may obtain legal info, attorney listings, and report marijuana arrests in Washington State. http://cdc.coop/potline
  • Placed newspaper ads attacking county prosecutors that intentionally focus on medical marijuana prosecutions. http://cdc.coop/tucker_ad and http://cdc.coop/hauge_ad
  • Created a public awareness campaign surrounding the Department of Health hearings to define what constitutes a "60-day supply" under our medical marijuana law. http://cdc.coop/doh
  • Created the Cannabis Resource Center in Seattle's South Park neighborhood, a public space dedicated to cannabis activism, which houses our offices. http://cdc.coop/crc
  • Started a café to serve food to the under served community of South Park. http://cdc.coop/cafe
  • Petitioned the Washington State Medical Quality Assurance Commission to add neuropathic pain to the list of conditions qualifying to use medical marijuana under RCW 69.51A. http://cdc.coop/mqac

I'm proud to be part of the Cannabis Defense Coalition.
pmocek is offline  
Old Jun 3, 2010, 4:57 pm
  #695  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Originally Posted by Firebug4
In the states that have statues that require you to identify yourself to law enforcement, refer to you verbally giving your true identity to the officer. I am not aware of any states that require you to provide an identity document to the officer. Would the officer prefer a document? Of course, but it is not required. Does that answer your question? If not I will try to reword it.

FB
Answers the question perfectly, FB. And comports with my understanding of the law. Thanks.

Originally Posted by pmocek
definitions of identify, identity, and identification
Thanks. My concern was with FB's usage and meaning, not my reading of the OED.

I await word from the bench with great interest and wish you all the best. ^

Last edited by essxjay; Jun 4, 2010 at 3:38 am
essxjay is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2010, 7:43 pm
  #696  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
no trial on June 14, 2010

The case has been continued.

The court's main page for my case shows "Judge/Division: 2-Kevin L Fitzwater," sentencing page notes "NOTICE OF RECUSAL A RESULT OF STATE'S AMENDED WITNESS LIST," and "FILED6-4-10. RULE DATE IS 9-14-10," and events/hearings page shows:

Code:
Event Date Time  Event Type      Judge               Status    Note
---------- ----- --------------- ------------------- --------- -------------
06/14/2010  9:30 Jury Trial      4-Julie N Altwies   Continued ..
06/07/2010 16:51 Judge Removed   4-Julie N Altwies   Jdg Reasg ..
06/07/2010 11:11 Recusal Recvd   4-Julie N Altwies   Recusal   ..
06/07/2010 11:11 Order           4-Julie N Altwies   Docketed  Set For Trial
06/07/2010 11:11 Motion Continue 4-Julie N Altwies   Docketed  Set For Trial
05/10/2010  9:30 Jury Trial      4-Julie N Altwies   Continued ..
04/20/2010 11:11 Motion Continue 4-Julie N Altwies   Docketed  Set For Trial
04/19/2010 15:37 Entry Appearnce 4-Julie N Altwies   Ent Of Ap ..
02/05/2010 14:00 Criminal Trial  4-Julie N Altwies   Continued ..
02/01/2010 11:11 Motion Continue 4-Julie N Altwies   Docketed  Set For Trial
01/29/2010 15:34 Entry Appearnce 4-Julie N Altwies   Ent Of Ap ..
11/16/2009  9:30 Custody Arrain. 8-Judith K Nakamura Docketed  Set For Trial
Trial date: TBA
Court: Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court
Case number: CR 25737/09 (For details, go to the court's search page, complete the CAPTCHA, then search for criminal case 2573709)
Judge: Kevin L. Fitzwater
Prosecutor: Julie Gallardo
Defense attorneys: Nancy Hollander, Molly Schmidt-Nowara
Charges:
  1. New Mexico Revised Code 30-20-1: Disorderly conduct
  2. Albuquerque Code of Ordinances 12-2-16: Concealing identity with intent to obstruct
  3. Albuquerque Code of Ordinances 12-2-19: Resisting, obstructing, or refusing to obey a lawful order of a police officer
  4. Albuquerque Code of Ordinances 12-2-3: Criminal trespass

I have nothing else to report at this time.
pmocek is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2010, 7:59 pm
  #697  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Originally Posted by pmocek
The case has been continued.

The court's main page for my case shows "Judge/Division: 2-Kevin L Fitzwater," sentencing page notes "NOTICE OF RECUSAL A RESULT OF STATE'S AMENDED WITNESS LIST," and "FILED6-4-10. RULE DATE IS 9-14-10," and events/hearings page shows:
Who was added to their witness list in the last round?
Ari is offline  
Old Jun 8, 2010, 8:09 pm
  #698  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 230
So as a result of the State amending their witness list the judge recused herself!

Do you know who the new witness is?

Opps! You said you had nothing to add, sorry.

Maybe a posting of both witness lists!!

Just hoping!!
rgfloor is offline  
Old Jun 9, 2010, 1:21 am
  #699  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,318
Do you have reschedules for your new trials sometimes in between July or August. I am not sure for which the specific date is that. Can you please try to figure it out for which the specific date to be set. What about your charges will eventually to be dropped.
N830MH is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2010, 9:34 am
  #700  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,090
I too am curious who the government would add to the witness list just prior to trial and what relationship this person has to the judge?

Was it a tactic to get a judge who prosecutor's think will lean towards the governments case?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2010, 1:35 pm
  #701  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Originally Posted by pmocek
The case has been continued.

The court's main page for my case shows "Judge/Division: 2-Kevin L Fitzwater," sentencing page notes "NOTICE OF RECUSAL A RESULT OF STATE'S AMENDED WITNESS LIST," and "FILED6-4-10. RULE DATE IS 9-14-10," and events/hearings page shows:
Originally Posted by Ari
Who was added to their witness list in the last round?
Actually, the court's page doesn't say "ADDED," it says "AMENDED." Amended means 'changed' or 'altered' rather than necessarily added to. We just can't tell dispositively from the information provided. (You are probably right, tho. Not trying to pick a fight, just nits. )

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
Was it a tactic to get a judge who prosecutor's think will lean towards the governments case?
That would be well within the boundaries of proper conduct if not an implied duty of the prosecutor.

As for the judge, they can be recused by objections of either party or they can disqualify themselves. We can't tell which is the case from Phil's post alone.

Last edited by essxjay; Jun 10, 2010 at 1:59 pm
essxjay is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2010, 1:57 pm
  #702  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,090
=essxjay;14111811]The court's page doesn't say "ADDED," it says "AMENDED." Amended means 'changed' or 'altered' rather than necessarily added to. It could be the case that a witness was removed from the list, another one added, *and* the judge was recused as independent events. We can't tell from the information provided.
Perhaps I'm not smart enough but I don't see how someone being removed from the witness list would cause a judge to recuse themself.

That would be well within the boundaries of proper conduct, if not an implied duty of the prosecutor.

As for the judge, they can be recused by objections of either party or they can disqualify themselves. We can't tell which is the case from Phil's post alone.
I would truly hope the judge would be impartial and just apply the law.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2010, 2:03 pm
  #703  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Originally Posted by essxjay
We can't tell which is the case from Phil's post alone.
Just to make it clear: My post to which Essxjay referred was simply a relaying of public information. Anyone can query the court's Web site and find the same.

To Ari and others who have asked for more information: I don't have anything else to report at this time.
pmocek is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2010, 2:20 pm
  #704  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Originally Posted by pmocek
Just to make it clear: My post to which Essxjay referred was simply a relaying of public information.
I don't think anyone thought otherwise. We appreciate the update. ^
essxjay is offline  
Old Jun 10, 2010, 2:23 pm
  #705  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,090
Originally Posted by essxjay
I don't think anyone thought otherwise. We appreciate the update. ^
Agree. I think we are all just wondering what is going on at the court level. The court information pages don't tell us much.
Boggie Dog is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.