Ari

Based on Phil's posts here and what I heard on the audio tape, I am inclined to believe that he made a scene. That doesn't mean the cops were right, just that he made a scene when he disobeyed their orders (i.e. he fought out the issue on the street). As far as "rights", that simply means that what the courts consider his rights and what Phil considers his rights don't always seem to match up.

Its called a civil lawsuit; you don't have to get arrested to go to court. Look how many things have been changed through 42 USC 1983 actions. There is a very long list. Very long.

tom911

Is that what is in play here? Which of these charges do you think are unconstitutional?

Ari

No one's asking you to. But are the reasons for the delays not a part of the court record?

sethb

Since the court hasn't even heard the case yet, just postponed it a number of times, any claims about "what the court considers" are, at best, premature. We'll know what the court considers when it tells us (and what it should consider when the appeals finish).

My guess is that they'll piss around for a while, then offer to settle by dropping all charges in return for an agreement not to sue. It's obviously Phil's decision how to act; my recommendation would be to insist on a written apology in addition (and, better, more training of the police in the law and people's rights).

Boggie Dog

Regardless of how this turns out under New Mexico law what if any change will be forced on TSA's ID policies?

I'm thinking none from this case.

So even if Phil wins the case what good will it have done?

jkhuggins

Disclaimer: I'm sure that I don't know what I'm talking about, from a legal or statutory perspective.

But a win for Phil in this case would establish that TSOs can't summon LEOs to arrest a passenger for ... well, whatever it is that the prosecution claims Phil did. (Well, they could, but the LEO wouldn't comply.)

Firebug4

It will do nothing to TSA whatsoever. The only thing TSA has to do with this is that they called the police to respond. Everything that he was charged with happened after the police arrived at the scene. The laws that the state are alleging that he violated are state and local laws not federal. That is really the problem here. He entered this encounter knowing what TSA could do and what he was entitled to do and not do within TSA policy. What it appears he didn't understand was the state and local laws and that the local airport police had the will and ability to enforce them.

FB

Ari

I said "courts", not court-- as in what higher courts have ruled over the years vis-a-vis rights and powers. What this court says (by the way, I believe the jury will be the finder of fact) in this case will have little to do with rights; it will just tell us if 12 people think Phil is guilty of that with which he is charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zip. It is a fool's erand. Compare with Bierfeldt and George which actually had/have a chance of changing things. I doubt Phil would prevail in a civil rights lawsuit though I do think these cops need to be put in their place.

N830MH

Whatever if he found not guilty of his charges and they will eventually to dropped all of his charges against Mr. Phil. He will walk away from the courts. Let's find out soon enough on December 2010. He will wins the case against ABQ police department.

Superguy

But again, without some sort of harm occurring, how do you get it in front of a court, regardless of it being civil or criminal? Without harm, you have no standing to file a suit.

Realistically, a lot of those charges could have been brought against Bierfeldt too as he was "uncooperative" with TSA and the law.

Boggie Dog

It was my thinking that Phil wanted to challenge the TSA requirement to present ID, and I agree I think he missed the target.

What I do think is happening is that Phil is running up a legal bill that he and his supporters will end up paying for no gain.

Ari

Gilmore had standing; he didn't have to piss off a bunch of cops to get it.

wildcatlh

No, but he had to be denied his right to travel. There has to be harm.

Besides, pissing off cops shouldn't be a crime (well, it isn't, but, as in this case, contempt of cop is one of the worst things you can do, apparently). It should be the duty of every American citizen.

n4zhg

And can be quite lucrative, since the pissed-off cop doesn't have to pay out of pocket. Thus he has no incentive to change his ways. A cop that has to cough it up is a "Man Bites Dog" story. The last I heard of was a year ago, when a cop arrested a Fire Captain for not moving his firetruck on the cop's order (said firetruck was at the time creating a traffic break for rescuers at an accident).

This is why I laugh when I read or hear someone say that a wronged person has remedies via 42 USC 1983. Yes, that individual will get some cash. But MY metric is not the amount of money paid out, but the subsequent actions of the LEO or agency in question. Photography in Lower Manhattan is an excellent example -- over 100K paid out total, and cops are still arresting people with cameras. That does not meet my definition of "meaningful recourse" and plays a major role in my advocacy of harsh remedies for these morons.

Ari

Phil couldn't have done that?

Cops do pay out of pocket for punitive damages awarded I believe. I could be wrong, but I thought it works this way.