Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Dec 3, 2010, 6:35 pm
#842
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
Given the choice between a strip search (i.e., someone searching me by looking under my clothing) or being frisked, I'll always choose to be frisked.
However, I'll almost certainly take a bus or a train to Albuquerque next month. Two days of such in each direction is not appealing, but neither is submitting to the frisk or the strip search.
However, I'll almost certainly take a bus or a train to Albuquerque next month. Two days of such in each direction is not appealing, but neither is submitting to the frisk or the strip search.
Dec 3, 2010, 8:12 pm
#843
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Dec 3, 2010, 9:38 pm
#844
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,324
Dec 3, 2010, 10:02 pm
#846
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Dec 3, 2010, 10:40 pm
#847
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Thank you.
They have the right to try.
Last edited by essxjay; Dec 4, 2010 at 1:01 am Reason: reference to deleted post
Dec 4, 2010, 12:30 am
#848
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
# Statement from Jonathan Breedon, TSA LTSO #
I started to complete the documentation required by the Identity Verification Call Center (IVCC). I had filled out the passengers name and date portion of the form when I noticed that passenger Mocek had a camera in his hand and it appeared that he was taking pictures or videotaping the process I was conducting. I informed passenger Mocek that he need to stop immediately. Passenger Mocek responded that he didn't think it was illegal and it was his right to be able to take pictures in an area accessible to the public. I informed passenger Mocek that he was not allowed to take pictures of or video tape the processes at the checkpoint. I then, via radio, requested an STSO to have a Law Enforcement Officer respond to the Travel Document Checking (TDC) area immediately.
I started to complete the documentation required by the Identity Verification Call Center (IVCC). I had filled out the passengers name and date portion of the form when I noticed that passenger Mocek had a camera in his hand and it appeared that he was taking pictures or videotaping the process I was conducting. I informed passenger Mocek that he need to stop immediately. Passenger Mocek responded that he didn't think it was illegal and it was his right to be able to take pictures in an area accessible to the public. I informed passenger Mocek that he was not allowed to take pictures of or video tape the processes at the checkpoint. I then, via radio, requested an STSO to have a Law Enforcement Officer respond to the Travel Document Checking (TDC) area immediately.
Dec 4, 2010, 8:50 am
#849
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Please let us know who you call and how he or she responds.
Have you considered contacting the press?
Dec 4, 2010, 10:38 am
#850
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
What are the facts as you understand them to be such that Phil should be "prosecute[d] to the full extent of the law"?
The TSA was handling the ID verification process correctly until the photography started. And that is where it all went downhill. Think of TSO Breedon's cross-examination: So Mr. Breedon, if you had actually understood your own agency's rules about photography, then none of this would have occurred. It was your lack of knowledge of your own rules that led to my client's arrest. If you would have known your own rules, we wouldn't be here today. Isn't that correct?
The TSA was handling the ID verification process correctly until the photography started. And that is where it all went downhill. Think of TSO Breedon's cross-examination: So Mr. Breedon, if you had actually understood your own agency's rules about photography, then none of this would have occurred. It was your lack of knowledge of your own rules that led to my client's arrest. If you would have known your own rules, we wouldn't be here today. Isn't that correct?
FB
Dec 4, 2010, 11:17 am
#851
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
Regardless of what initiated Mr Mocek's contact with the police department, it is Mr. Mocek's conduct in dealing with the Law Enforcement Officer that is reason he was arrested. This case appears to have little to due with the TSA. It is not about the TSA ID procedures. Mr. Mocek had the correct information when dealing with TSA and what he was allowed to do regarding those policies and procedures. What he didn't know was what the local ordinances were and what he could and couldn't do when dealing with the local police. His charges are related to information that he wouldn't give to the Law Enforcement Officer not information that he wouldn't give to the TSA.
So Mr. Breedon, if you had actually understood your own agency's rules about photography, then none of this would have occurred. It was your lack of knowledge of your own rules that led to my client's arrest. If you would have known your own rules, we wouldn't be here today. Isn't that correct?
It seems to me that he was arrested for contempt of cop and that the criminal charges are almost entirely a technical/legal matter as far as the overall encounter; this is not to say that the elements of one or more of the the crimes with which he is charged cannot be met, but rather that the subjective motivation (i.e. driving force) behind the arrest was to show Phill who's boss rather than to further any public safety interest.
Officers in cannot operate with 20/20 hindsight and, in an airport context, an officer faced with a passenger that arouses suspicion cannot be expected to walk away without investigation. An arrest on trumped-up charges is not necessarily an appropriate use of resources to in lieu of the other options that may have been available to achieve the same end.
Dec 4, 2010, 11:34 am
#852
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
This may be a decent working definition, with a slight add, for a person trespassing in a private home. The key is that a REASONABLE person would KNOW they no longer have PERMISSION to remain in a privately owned location. This usually works by telling that person the are not welcome and they must leave your private property.
I DO NOT believe this definition applies at all for public property (ABQ is the property of the City of ABQ). The fact that he is no longer "welcome" is meaningless. He has the right to be on public property. Simply being unwelcome is not sufficient for a charge of CRIMINAL trespass (that his mere presence is breaking a law). Even if he was not permitted into the secure area, he still has the right to be at the airport (e.g., to listen to the bands playing on the second level).
[/IANAL]
Dec 4, 2010, 2:43 pm
#853
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
[IANAL]
This may be a decent working definition, with a slight add, for a person trespassing in a private home. The key is that a REASONABLE person would KNOW they no longer have PERMISSION to remain in a privately owned location. This usually works by telling that person the are not welcome and they must leave your private property.
I DO NOT believe this definition applies at all for public property (ABQ is the property of the City of ABQ). The fact that he is no longer "welcome" is meaningless. He has the right to be on public property. Simply being unwelcome is not sufficient for a charge of CRIMINAL trespass (that his mere presence is breaking a law). Even if he was not permitted into the secure area, he still has the right to be at the airport (e.g., to listen to the bands playing on the second level).
[/IANAL]
This may be a decent working definition, with a slight add, for a person trespassing in a private home. The key is that a REASONABLE person would KNOW they no longer have PERMISSION to remain in a privately owned location. This usually works by telling that person the are not welcome and they must leave your private property.
I DO NOT believe this definition applies at all for public property (ABQ is the property of the City of ABQ). The fact that he is no longer "welcome" is meaningless. He has the right to be on public property. Simply being unwelcome is not sufficient for a charge of CRIMINAL trespass (that his mere presence is breaking a law). Even if he was not permitted into the secure area, he still has the right to be at the airport (e.g., to listen to the bands playing on the second level).
[/IANAL]
http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bur...inal-trespass/
A person is guilty of criminal trespass if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling or premises, or if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building or upon real property which is fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders. A person commits criminal trespass who, knowing he does not have the owner’s effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof. Laws vary by state, so local laws must be consulted to determine applicable requirements. It is a defense to the crime to show that an element of the crime, such as knowingly entering or remaining without authorization, is lacking. An attempted criminal trespass requires that a defendant act with the intent to commit criminal trespass, and his conduct must constitute a substantial step toward committing the aggravated criminal trespass.
C. Criminal trespass also consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon lands owned, operated or controlled by the state or any of its political subdivisions knowing that consent to enter or remain is denied or withdrawn by the custodian thereof.