thadocta

Why? The ONLY interest that the airlines have in confirming identity is WRT revenue protection, to make sure that the person travelling is the person named on the ticket.

This though, as I have said, is a revenue protection issue, rather than a security issue, so call it what it is, it is about airlines not wanting to be abused by people on-selling cheap return flights.

Otherwise, if the person flying has been properly screened, then what difference does it make? It can be OBL for all I care, as long as EVERYBODY on that flight has been properly screened.

Agreed. So again, there is no need to verify identity when undertaking the security screening process.

Dave

That assumes that the "no fly" list is actually valid.

Dave

Firebug4

Nope, I didn't forget anything. There is not one story in this forum on either side of any issue that "alleges" anything. When the stories concerning Law Enforcement and TSA include the the word "alleged" I will start using it too. I may have not been present but I listened to the tapes that were posted. Albuquerque has a law that requires you to ID yourself to law enforcement conducting a investigation. It doesn't matter what started that investigation. Again, this case has very little to do with TSA.

FB

michelle227

How exactly does the ID check keep someone on the no-fly list from passing the clerk smurf? After all, they do nothing more than look at the name and shine a black light on it...they are not matching the ID to ANY sort of a database.

Which brings us back to the clerk doing no meaningful function to warrant a salary...and certainly nothing that promotes the interest of traveler safety.

dgcpaphd

Good point, I did not think of the "no fly" list.

Despite my dislike for the abuse done to passengers by TSA, I now understand why identity is verified by them. Were it not for the "no fly" list, there would be no other valid reason for identity checks.

The abusive TSA scanners and groping is another thing, altogether.
-

Boggie Dog

The TSA screener (TDC) looking at ID's does not compare that information to any list. That person has no idea if someone is on the No Fly list or not.

The TDC function is a waste of time and resources.

flyinbob

No, but he compares the name to the boarding pass, which is issued by the airline and is on file for comparison to the no-fly list.

And while it isn't the best system, how would we introduce a "trusted traveler" system to replace the current grab-and-grope if there wasn't some sort of ID confirmation.

dgcpaphd

Thanks for expanding on what I intended to say in my post.

I thought that most readers would know that I purposely left out a step ("trusted traveler program) while trying to be brief.

Of course, the airline checks for those on the "no fly" list (as you noted) and the TSA confirms that the identification matches the boarding pass issued by the airline. This is a reasonable confirmation.

However, in connection with the "no fly" list, it is interesting that the airlines failed to catch the so called xmas day "underwear bomber" who was in process of being added to the "no fly" list.
-

michelle227

Given that there is no matching to any computerized listing though, I (or any person so inclined) could get (rather quickly and on short notice) an ID that was a competent enough forgery to fool the smurfs...that sort of a situation could change if they ever move to a system where they run the ID through a card-reader, but the present black-light followed by an inked squiggle on the boarding pass is a waste of resources.

TamCaP

For MANY airports & airlines, creating a fake on-line BP is a matter that could be handled by a reasonably skilled 15 year old...

And I will not even go into "borrowing" (read: stealing) an ID and plethora of other opportunities that can literally take 5 minutes & which circumvent any utility of the TDC.

flyinbob

Agreed, but if we assume any ID may be fake, what system would we have for creating a trusted traveler program, or maintaining a no-fly list? Biometrics, or finger prints? Expensive, but likely the only reasonable next step.

Otherwise, how would one go about keeping Osama bin Laden off the next transcon to LAX?

Ari

FB, you are usually very careful, but I think your somewhat simplistic summary of the statute comes close to the need to update your counter. The law says the following:

Because the statute requires the intent to obstruct "due execution of the law," a jury could very easily conclude that, where no crime occurred, no obstruction of "due execution of the law" exists since there is no law to execute. Similarly, in order to "intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights," the officer must be engaged in the "legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights." A jury could conclude that a police officer conducting an illegal investigation is not engaged in the "legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights."

I cannot square your statement that "[i]t doesn't matter what started that investigation" with the statute that expressly sets the nature of encounters that the statute covers. There is also an intent element (specific intent actually), while your summary of the statute makes it appear as though it imposes strict liability and/or an affirmative duty.

Why would anyone care as long as he has been searched and doesn't have any W/E/I with him or on him?

TWA884

New Mexico Judicial Conduct Advisory Opinions:
More in University of New Mexico Judicial Education Center Judicial Ethics Handbook.

MikeMpls

Why would it even matter if Osama bin Laden is on the next flight to LAX? If our security works and he has no bombs or weapons, what could he do?

pmocek

Greetings from Albuquerque.

It's not clear why I was arrested. Officer Landra "Wiggy" Wiggins clearly stated to my travel partner that I was being arrested "for being stupid." Best I can tell, the audio recording of him doing so was made by a recorder he was holding at the time. He didn't seem to indicate whether my stupidity was perpetrated before or after he and Officer Robert "Bobby" F. Dilley got involved.

That's many people's reaction.

That probably depends on what arouses his suspicion. For instance, if he is suspicious of dark-skinned people, I do expect him to walk away without investigation. Likewise, if an officer finds it suspicious for someone to photograph that which thousands of people look at every day, I expect him to walk away without investigation.

"Not necessarily"? When is an arrest on trumped-up charges ever an appropriate use of resources?


I was charged with:


The judge and jury will determine if I violated any laws. The DA may have suspicions, but judging guilt is not the duty of the executive branch.

Maybe TSA are pressuring them. Public sentiment has turned sharply in opposition to TSA policies recently. It seems they'd want to smack down anyone who dares question the authority of their airport staff. "Keep marching forward, folks. Do not step out of line."

Sometimes they say it's required, sometimes they say it is not. Sometimes they say both in the same paragraph.


The best Albuquerque-area criminal defense lawyer I could find. See "The Most Important Cases in America; Albuquerque lawyer defends Guantánamo prisoners—and our justice system," by Simon McCormack, about Nancy Hollander's background.

Those questions are outside my area of expertise. Jury selection will begin on the 7th.


No, they don't. They need to confirm that everyone who boards a flight paid the fare. It doesn't matter who someone is as long as he holds a valid ticket or boarding pass.

When they're searching passengers, their job is to find weapons, explosives, and incendiaries. They've taken it upon themselves to search for various other contraband, but such action is likely unlawful.

I completely agree.

Thanks. I don't like being delayed, either.


True, but what is a "no-fly violation"? I think you're saying that without the identity check, TSA would be unable to restrict the movement of people who have been secretly blacklisted. Great! We shouldn't be doing that in the first place. If people are suspected of wrongdoing, they should have their day in court. Unless they've been found guilty, we should leave them alone. With the blacklisting system, our executive branch of government can restrict people's motion and thus their ability to associate. These are Constitutionally-protected activities.

Paraphrasing the Identity Project's "What's wrong with showing ID? page: "No matter how sophisticated the security embedded into an I.D., a well-funded criminal will be able to falsify it. Honest people, however, go to Pro-Life rallies. Honest people go to Pro-Choice rallies, too. Honest people attend gun shows. Honest people protest the actions of the President of the United States. Honest people fly to political conventions. <b>What if those with the power to put people on a 'no fly' list decided that they didn't like the reason for which you wanted to travel?</b> The honest people wouldn't be going anywhere."


Agreed.


Yep. And such blacklisting is shameful. We have an effective system for dealing with people suspected of wrongdoing, and putting them on a secret list of people whose movement will be restricted is not the way it's supposed to work.


None, maybe? Who cares?

Why should he be kept off that flight? Because someone doesn't like what he has to say (not that I do)? If he's convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, put him in prison. If he's wanted, arrest him and get him in front of a judge. But let's not set up a system whereby we prevent certain people from moving and associating just because somebody, somewhere, added his name to a secret list.

ND Sol

Then let's consider a portion of the LEO's cross-examination:

How long have you worked as an ABQ LEO? And you are trained in not only law enforcement, but also the rules and regulations of the airport aren't you?

You were called to the checkpoint because TSO Breedon didn't want Mr. Mocek filming the screening weren't you? Now, there wasn't any indication that the actual filming was interfering with the screening process, except for the fact that TSO Breedon didn't like it, is there?

TSA didn't provide you with any written regulation to show that filming by Mr. Mocek was prohibited did they? Did you ask Mr. Mocek if he had any documentation that his filming was not prohibited?

You previously testified that Mr. Mocek kept stating that he had a right to film, but yet you relied solely on what a TSO orally told you about the law in your primary jurisdiction, didn't you?

Now, you can't point me to the law that states that filming of the screening checkpoint as Mr. Mocek was doing was prohibited, can you?

Mr. LEO, perhaps you recall that maxim, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If you had actually done a proper investigation instead of a knee-jerk reaction and had actually knew the law as you say that you have trained to know, then none of this would have occurred. And isn't that the reason why we have to be here today wasting the time of this court and the members of the jury? (Objection; sustained )