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

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

Old Dec 3, 10, 5:58 pm
  #841  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
Will there me any pre-trial motions heard that morning?
I don't know. I haven't heard of any plans for such.
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 3, 10, 6:35 pm
  #842  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
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.
Just hope a VIPR team isn't providing an "escort" for your bus or train
ghostrider10 is offline  
Old Dec 3, 10, 8:12 pm
  #843  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: Gate Louse Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,164
Originally Posted by Trollkiller View Post
You can trespass if a reasonable person would know that they are no longer welcome in that location.

I know a man in Houston that was convicted of "attempted trespass". I am still trying to wrap my head around that one.
Welcome back TK! ^
Superguy is offline  
Old Dec 3, 10, 9:38 pm
  #844  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 37,345
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
I don't know. I haven't heard of any plans for such.
Are you still going to the court soon? You have try to talks with the attorney to explained what happened of the incident at airport.
N830MH is offline  
Old Dec 3, 10, 9:48 pm
  #845  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: Gate Louse Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,164
Really hope you don't get a jury full of sheeple.
Superguy is offline  
Old Dec 3, 10, 10:02 pm
  #846  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by myadvice View Post
Why is this suggested? To cause a mistrial?

People accused of crimes in the US have a right to be tried in front of an impartial judge and jury.

People also have the right to contact the judge.
LessO2 is offline  
Old Dec 3, 10, 10:40 pm
  #847  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,388
Originally Posted by myadvice View Post
Why is this suggested? To cause a mistrial?

People accused of crimes in the US have a right to be tried in front of an impartial judge and jury.
I know of no law against "judge tampering"-- it is the responsibility of the judge to remain objective. If one man sending a letter to a judge expressing his opinion on a case would cause a mistrial or a re-assignment, our justice system would go from a slow crawl to a grinding halt; a litigant cannot be permitted to derail his own trial at will. It doesn't work that way. Judges can put the letter in the record or, depending on the situation, ignore it.

Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
I don't know. I haven't heard of any plans for such.
Thank you.

Originally Posted by LessO2 View Post
People also have the right to contact the judge.
They have the right to try.

Last edited by essxjay; Dec 4, 10 at 1:01 am Reason: reference to deleted post
Ari is offline  
Old Dec 4, 10, 12:30 am
  #848  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by meisterau View Post
For those who want to contact the judge or DA to prosecute to the full extent of the law:
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian View Post
Thanks, I already donated $100 dollars to the city of Albuquerque to help defray costs of prosecuting this case. Hopefully others will also. I will give them a call and voice support.
What are the facts as you understand them to be such that Phil should be "prosecute[d] to the full extent of the law"?

# 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.
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?
ND Sol is offline  
Old Dec 4, 10, 8:50 am
  #849  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian View Post
Thanks, I already donated $100 dollars to the city of Albuquerque to help defray costs of prosecuting this case. Hopefully others will also.
Could you post information about how you did this so that others who would like to do so can? If I was trying to do the same, I wouldn't know whether to call the Mayor or just send a check written to "Prosecute Phil Mocek".

Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian View Post
I will give them a call and voice support.
Please let us know who you call and how he or she responds.

Have you considered contacting the press?
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 4, 10, 10:38 am
  #850  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
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?
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.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Dec 4, 10, 11:17 am
  #851  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,388
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
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.
Be that as it may, ND Sol's rendition of a potential question on cross examination is entirely accurate.

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 TSO called the cops because he didn't know the rules; had the TSO not called the cops in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. The fact that Phil got arrested for conduct that occurred after the cops arrived (and the criminal trespass charge is extremely questionable by the way) is of no moment when the defense examines the TSO at trial.

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.
Ari is offline  
Old Dec 4, 10, 11:34 am
  #852  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by Trollkiller View Post
You can trespass if a reasonable person would know that they are no longer welcome in that location.
[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]
ScatterX is offline  
Old Dec 4, 10, 2:43 pm
  #853  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by ScatterX View Post
[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]
From the US Legal.com
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.
2006 New Mexico Code - Section 30-14-1 — 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.
Trollkiller is offline  
Old Dec 4, 10, 3:02 pm
  #854  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Programs: Delta,United,Continental,US Airways,Southwest,Marriott,all car companies
Posts: 120
...and can TSA be legally considered the custodian of the property?
camerawork is offline  
Old Dec 4, 10, 3:05 pm
  #855  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,006
Originally Posted by camerawork View Post
...and can TSA be legally considered the custodian of the property?
I doubt it but the police sure can be.
Trollkiller is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread