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 5, 10, 10:58 am
  #871  
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd View Post
I agree the airlines need to confirm identity.
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.

However, TSA's function is to check for disallowed items passing through security. The passenger's name has no relationship to potentially banned items.
Agreed. So again, there is no need to verify identity when undertaking the security screening process.

Dave

Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
My hatred of the TSA is well documented, but it would open up a significant loophole if there was no ID check to get into the secure area. A clear person buys a ticket and hands it off to someone on the no-fly list. While the TSA in theory should stop them from bringing "dangerous" items in, we all know that is crap, so to prevent no-fly violations there needs to be some ID check before getting on a plane.
That assumes that the "no fly" list is actually valid.

Dave

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Dec 13, 10 at 2:22 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
thadocta is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:17 am
  #872  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by MaximumSisu View Post
Unless you were there, you forgot a word -- "alleged"
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
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:19 am
  #873  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Austin (TX)
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
My hatred of the TSA is well documented, but it would open up a significant loophole if there was no ID check to get into the secure area. A clear person buys a ticket and hands it off to someone on the no-fly list. While the TSA in theory should stop them from bringing "dangerous" items in, we all know that is crap, so to prevent no-fly violations there needs to be some ID check before getting on a plane.
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.
michelle227 is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:28 am
  #874  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,351
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post

snip snip -

but it would open up a significant loophole if there was no ID check to get into the secure area. A clear person buys a ticket and hands it off to someone on the no-fly list. While the TSA in theory should stop them from bringing "dangerous" items in, we all know that is crap, so to prevent no-fly violations there needs to be some ID check before getting on a plane.
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.
-
dgcpaphd is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:33 am
  #875  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 16,259
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd View Post
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.
-
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.
Boggie Dog is online now  
Old Dec 5, 10, 12:02 pm
  #876  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,229
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
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.
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.
flyinbob is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 12:35 pm
  #877  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,351
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post

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.
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.
-

Last edited by scoow; Dec 5, 10 at 2:58 pm Reason: referencing edited post
dgcpaphd is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 1:30 pm
  #878  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Austin (TX)
Posts: 305
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
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.
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.
michelle227 is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 2:13 pm
  #879  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Programs: M&M, AA GLD, FB
Posts: 233
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
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.
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.
TamCaP is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 2:30 pm
  #880  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,229
Originally Posted by TamCaP View Post
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.
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?
flyinbob is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 3:05 pm
  #881  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,040
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
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
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:

New Mexico Code 30-22-3. Concealing identity.
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent 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 under the laws of the United States or of this state.

Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
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.

Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
Otherwise, how would one go about keeping Osama bin Laden off the next transcon to LAX?
Why would anyone care as long as he has been searched and doesn't have any W/E/I with him or on him?
Ari is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 3:22 pm
  #882  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 12,420
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
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.
New Mexico Judicial Conduct Advisory Opinions:
A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or impending proceeding...
More in University of New Mexico Judicial Education Center Judicial Ethics Handbook.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 3:26 pm
  #883  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still a Hilton Diamond & Club Cholula™ Super Plats
Posts: 25,247
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
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?
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?
MikeMpls is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 4:06 pm
  #884  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Greetings from Albuquerque.

Originally Posted by Ari View Post
The fact that Phil got arrested for conduct that occurred after the cops arrived
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.

Originally Posted by Ari View Post
It seems to me that he was arrested for contempt of cop [...] to show Phill who's boss rather than to further any public safety interest.
That's many people's reaction.

Originally Posted by Ari View Post
an officer faced with a passenger that arouses suspicion cannot be expected to walk away without investigation.
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.

Originally Posted by Ari View Post
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.
"Not necessarily"? When is an arrest on trumped-up charges ever an appropriate use of resources?


I was charged with:

§ 12-2-3 CRIMINAL TRESPASS.

Criminal trespass consists of unlawfully entering or remaining upon the lands or property of another knowing that any consent to enter or remain has been denied or withdrawn by the person or persons lawfully in possession of the premises or after the request or demand to leave the premises by the authorized representative of the person or persons lawfully in possession of the premises.

'74 Code, § 12-1-2-3) (Ord. 96-1973; Am. Ord. 78-1978) Penalty, see § 12-1-99

Originally Posted by mynetdude View Post
I thought the DA couldn't even possibly (let alone the courts hear the case) present the case to the courts if he truly hasn't broken any laws
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.

Originally Posted by mynetdude View Post
from what I read it seems to be clear as day that he has not broken any laws so why would the courts even CONSIDER allowing the DA to try the case?
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."

Originally Posted by mynetdude View Post
even the TSA says no ID is required
Sometimes they say it's required, sometimes they say it is not. Sometimes they say both in the same paragraph.


Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
What kind of lawyer did you get?
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.

Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
How was the initial motion to dismiss denied by the judge?! Or is the hearing you are attending on the 7th the actual initial hearing post-bail?
Those questions are outside my area of expertise. Jury selection will begin on the 7th.


Originally Posted by dgcpaphd View Post
I agree the airlines need to confirm identity.
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.

Originally Posted by dgcpaphd View Post
TSA's function is to check for disallowed items passing through security.
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.

Originally Posted by dgcpaphd View Post
The passenger's name has no relationship to potentially banned items.
I completely agree.

Originally Posted by dgcpaphd View Post
I would not have made such an issue (because I do not want to be delayed), I must applaud the person for his attempt to curtail a portion of the abuse currently inflicted on innocent passengers while encountering TSA.
Thanks. I don't like being delayed, either.


Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
it would open up a significant loophole if there was no ID check to get into the secure area. [...] to prevent no-fly violations there needs to be some ID check before getting on a plane.
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."


Originally Posted by thadocta View Post
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.
Agreed.


Originally Posted by dgcpaphd View Post
Were it not for the "no fly" list, there would be no other valid reason for identity checks.
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.


Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
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?
None, maybe? Who cares?

Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
Otherwise, how would one go about keeping Osama bin Laden off the next transcon to LAX?
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.

Last edited by pmocek; Dec 5, 10 at 6:27 pm Reason: fix typo
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 4:10 pm
  #885  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
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.

FB
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 )
ND Sol is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: