mynetdude

pmocek

I disagree, its not the Judge's nor the Jury's job to determine if you broke any laws, that's LEO's job. The courts are there to determine if you are innocent or guilty and to determine punishment if any; it is also the Judge's job to INTERPRET the laws and make sure that the court is handled in a lawfully constitutional manner.

It's the LEO's job to know what laws he is arresting you for, otherwise any LEO can arrest any 'ole citizen and claim they were breaking the law and say "here DA, try them for this law they broke and let's see what the courts say!" No, it doesn't work that way.

If an LEO can't figure out what law you broke then he/she needs to back out and not even get involved. Just by being on public property does not make you criminally trespassing after all it is a public facility people are allowed there granted if someone is making nuisance now we have an issue and the LEO should be arresting that person for public disturbance, NOT for criminal trespassing.

Also, IIRC I don't believe any LEO in any jurisdiction can ask you to produce ID unless they have probable cause (which BTW, TSA doesn't have any, they aren't even LEOs and have no authority).


If you win this case, I'm sure this only affects the local ABQ area not nationally but I hope you challenge them with a federal countersuit and challenge the TSA buttheads.

gojirasan

To me this whole issue isn't even about the TSA. It has nothing to do with whether the TSA should be allowed to let someone past the checkpoint without ID or whether the airlines themselves should let someone board the plane without ID. This is about police abuse of power, about out of control cops and trumped up charges. About the legality of arresting someone for "contempt of cop". It is true that that TSO was a power-mad nutjob who should be immediately fired, but that TSO also had no real power except maybe to disallow Phil from going through the checkpoint and even that is uncertain. He cannot even physically stop him.

The real villains here were the cops. This is just a small example how LEOs in the US are totally out of control and answer to no one. How they routinely abuse their position. How they believe they are above the law and can do anything. People become cops precisely to be able to do what these cops did to Phil. It is not justice or some kind of twisted patriotism that makes cops become cops. It is pure power over other people, and probably a bit of sadism as well. Even cops who start out good will invariably go bad. Power corrupts.

RichMSN

To me, the problem has always been this -- there are no repercussions for a LEO who does something like this. Charges can get dismissed with prejudice, juries can quickly find "accused" not guilty, and the cops continue on, arresting those that don't respect their authoritah.

Phil, good luck, and I'll be following with interest.

flyinbob

But we all know that system doesn't work, and is the source of all kinds of problems, not to mention lots of loopholes. So isn't the point that it is better to find those who should NOT be flying, rather than treat all flyers as potential terrorists? Isn't it more likely ObL would be doing harm to planes than grandma Mabel? So isn't it better to identify those who would be more likely to do harm and single THEM out for more advanced screening?

jkhuggins

Even if we were to concede your point, the manner in which TSA performs this check can be trivially circumvented, making it almost pointless.

TSA performs extensive checking on IDs, using black lights, checking for security features, restricting what kinds of ID can be used, and so on. But it performs no such checks against boarding passes, which passengers can print at home on ordinary, plain paper, and then doctor at will in order to create a forgery. And since it is the boarding pass which provides the link between the passenger's ID and the check against the no-fly and selectee lists, this makes the entire check ineffective. (Okay, maybe it will catch the really dumb criminals, but it's not going to stop the next attack by a determined terrorist.)

tehiota

Exactly. A terrorist is only known after he's done something and an unknown terrorist is just one that hasn't succeeded yet. The whole concept of the no-fly list is absurd. You have to screen everyone equally with proven methods to be effective.

greentips

I think it is exclusively the judge and jury's job to determine if laws were broken. The cop's job is to respond to accusations, which in essence makes him/her nothing more than an observer or secretary or reporter for the courts.

His job is to investigate, write up reports and sort out details after a crime has been committed alleged. The job they are paid to do is to sort out the details of an incident, prepare reports for the courts/district attorney to present to the Court and the Court then decides what/whom to believe.

Being a competent secretary/reporter does require a cop to know the law, as knowing the law seems to me to be an underpinning of reasonable suspicion. If one doesn't know what one should be suspicious of, then one cannot be effective.

I think you are mostly correct. The legal standard is reasonable suspicion and arises from a series of cases.

Vagrancy statutes were struck down in 1972 (Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)) as being overbroad giving police nearly unlimited authority. Generalized stop and identify statutes were struck as failing a reasonable suspicion test, (Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)), TX didn't require reasonable suspicion. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), which the Court struck down a California stop and identify on reasonable suspicion statute as overbroad in that it didn't specify what kind of identification satisfied the requirement.

In Hilbel v. Nevada, the Supreme Court ruled that the states have the right to require someone to identify themselves to a police officer once an individual is detained based on reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, was committed or was about to be committed. That is the essence of a Terry stop and I think is the basis of most states' stop and identify statutes:
1. Is there reasonable suspicion?
2. If there is, a cop can require you to verbally identify yourself.

In this case (just from what I've read, and knowing how the TSA works), I infer that a.) TSA doesn't like us very much. b.) They really didn't like Phil testing their authority and c.) were down right unhappy (an obvious euphemism) that Phil was filming their behavior. So they called the cops.

The cops now have a complainant, alleging a crime has been committed. At this point, after listening to the tapes, it seems clear that Phil refused to identify himself to the TSA, the cops ordered him to identify himself to the TSA which he refused as an unlawful order, and they then threatened and ultimately did arrest him. What is not clear from my review of some of the data, is did the cops ask him to identify himself to them? If the answer is yes, and he refused, then then next question is: is the TSA's word sufficient to rise to the level of reasonable suspicion? That will be the job of the jury.

^+1000

tehiota

Agreed, but what was the alleged crime being committed? According to the TSA's own website http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav...documents.shtm while they 'require' you to show ID, they have a procedure for resolving the circumstance for when passengers "who do not" (read: unwilling) show it and submit them through 'additional screening'.

I can't compel someone to show me their ID and if I call the police and ask them to compel someone to show me their ID, they should refuse. I'm honestly surprised that LEOs aren't more versed on where the TSA's authority/boundries begin/end because its becoming more and more obvious that TSA is using LEOs like puppets for their dirty work and one would think that that they/LEOs wouldn't like non-superiors pulling their strings.

greentips

That is the $60,000 question: If we are to take the police at their word, the crime alleged is "being stupid." In which case, according to ABC polls on the TSA, applies to 80% of the population. Only in my opinion, of course.

mynetdude

greentips

perhaps the LEOs are the secretary & observer for the courts, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If a cop says you're the one breaking the law when you haven't or perhaps the one making the complaint really broke the law but they prefer to believe them rather than you and this carries over in court then its totally flawed

I am sure the above situation does happen or at least it can happen. One thing I seem to notice LEOs are overzealous humans (just like the rest of us, we're ALL humans including them we are not special and neither are they) who get special treatment, you murder someone you might get 30 years in prison you shoot a cop you'll get the death penalty all they are is a person wearing a uniform with a bunch of bling blings... nothing more they don't deserve extra respect HOWEVER any LEO that respects its citizens is worthy of normal respect in return anybody who doesn't only deserves grief.

Also, I should point out that if a cop intends to investigate a possible crime or alledged crime, I have no problem verbally stating who I am. So long as I am not detained nor required to produce ID then the above is fine, that's reasonable.

Here's a good example of a cop who should be fired not that its serious but its pointless. My sister was being evicted, no notice was issued the landlords just came and started changing the locks and so forth. This is an obvious clear violation of the law, at the same time my sister being evicted is also a violation of the law so its a tossup but if I were an LEO I would have made an arrest for breaking and entering simply because procedure was not followed (you can't just go evict somebody when you want and change their locks)

True it is a civil matter, that is not the point. This is how I sort of see the TSA/LEO issue here, there was no suspicion, there was no cause or probable cause except for a complaint that was nonvalid all the TSA had to do was prevent him from crossing into the secure area until Phill crossed over then they could legitimately make a valid complaint that Phill alledgedly crossed into the secure area without showing ID but even then that is even questionable when the TSA says that you need and ID and don't need one at the same time and any LEO should know that too.

FlyingHoustonian

A feckless and inane comment. How does me donating to the prosecution of a grandstanding churlish person-looking-for-a- fight have anything to do with "progress" or the TSA? Don't presume to put words in my mouth kid.

I have actually done more to stop the TSA than most likely anyone on this board, as I actually affected legislation as a federal lobbyist.

The problem here is you people think this case will have some bearing on the TSA. It will not. Listen to the Audio. This case is about a guy being a smart-... with the ABQ-PD, nothing more or less. Even if Mocek "wins", whatever that shall be in a criminal case like this, it will not change anything. You will see some posts on a message board, that is all.

There are ways to go after the TSA. This is not one of them. I've posted some before, especially when some were thinking of starting a lobbying group. This takes money. You want to go after the TSA and its absurd useless policies, you need money, and representation. Not a guy acting like a spoilt brat with the ABQ-PD.

Ciao,
FH

meisterau

Phil, only sentiment from flertalk posters. The rest of the public (majority) is firmly behind TSA

FlyingHoustonian

I most certainly did, and even mentioned it several weeks ago. $100 bucks is nothing but you donate to the city's general fund. It is not difficult. I've donated money to several cities before. Why would you think it is difficult?
I'll be happy to scan the cashed check and post it if you like. Contact Mark Sandoval, Acting Budget Officer
Phone: (505) 768-2953
Email: [email protected]
Address:
One Civic Plaza, NW
City/County Building, 11th Floor
Albuquerque, NM 87102
. They can point you in the right direction if you want to donate.

As I said in a response above. This trial has nothing to do with TSA, an organisation I despise and have actually affected changes too. This is about Mocek and his inane grandstanding with ABQ-PD. Nothing more or less. This trail is zero percent about TSA and there ineffective practices.

Ciao,
FH

coachrowsey

I pretty much ask the same question to one of the spots here & he walked away.

mynetdude

I disagree, not after what the media has been showing us unless that's false, I don't think majority of the public is behind the TSA, maybe majority of the cracked up politicians are.