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, 8:39 pm
  #901  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by mynetdude View Post
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
Sure it does. The system is not flawed, it is what the courts are supposed to do: sort out the truth. A cop can say anything he/she wants. The only time they have to tell the truth is to the court, under oath. Often there will be an he said/she said component of an incident, as the one you described. This is what the courts are for: to sort out the wheat from the chaff and make a determination as to what actually transpired and render judgment as to what laws, if any were broken and the consequences of same.

Originally Posted by mynetdude View Post
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.

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.
Which may or may not arise to the level of reasonable suspicion. The Albuquerque police were called. They had a reason to come to the moat. They asked to cooperate with the TSA, which he apparently refused. Here is where I'm not clear. They might have asked him to identify himself to them. They were investigating a call, which does might give rise to reasonable suspicion. They have a witness (TSA), and asked Phil to provide identification, which is where it gets gray. If the cop, in the course of investigating the TSA complaint, did indeed ask him for identification, and he refused, then it is likely he did break the law.

NMSA 30-22-3 makes it a crime in NM to refuse to identify oneself with intent to hinder or interrupt a public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty. The cop was called to investigate an incident. Phil was involved in that incident. If the cops ordered Phil to identify himself to them and he did, as Steve Beirfeldt did when the TSA tried to have him arrested for carrying $4,700 in cash, then there would be no case, and likely no incident. Whether or not a violation of the statutes took place is a question for judge and jury, with all facts in hand and witnesses examined in open court.

Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian View Post
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
On this we agree. If we are to regain control of the TSA (and I regard the TSA/DHS as a symptom of a far larger problem with our government), we must act carefully and with caution, while their brazenness becomes increasingly obvious until we can rally adequate strength to successfully oppose them.
greentips is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 8:47 pm
  #902  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by Spiff View Post
The airlines, yes. For revenue protection.

The TSA, absolutely not. They have no valid reason to check ID.
I don't think I agree, but maybe I don't understand the argument. It seems to me that, once I have shown the good folks who claim to be providing safety of travel who I am, they should let me go on my way without further inquiry. After all, I am not a threat and they know it. However, once I do show my identification, the TSA still insists on treating me like criminal. I don't like that at all. But establishing that I am indeed me doesn't bother me.
motorguy is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 9:45 pm
  #903  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,973
Originally Posted by motorguy View Post
I don't think I agree, but maybe I don't understand the argument.
The argument is two-fold: 1) The TSA has no mechanism to assess the veracity of the ID document, and 2) the TSA's mandate is limited to administrative searches to clear pax, crews and airside workers of weapons, incendiaries and explosives.

Two documents that share some common words, such as 'John X. Smith' neither proves nor disproves the bearer's identity really is 'John X. Smith', regardless of whether the photo on one of those documents appears to be the person present. IOW, identification documents are not the same thing as identity. Therefore, it is impossible for the TSA to establish that anyone is who they say they are.
essxjay is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 10:08 pm
  #904  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Originally Posted by meisterau View Post
Phil, only sentiment from flertalk posters. The rest of the public (majority) is firmly behind TSA
"Firmly behind" is eons away from "accepting of."
PhoenixRev is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 10:10 pm
  #905  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by greentips View Post
Sure it does. The system is not flawed, it is what the courts are supposed to do: sort out the truth. A cop can say anything he/she wants. The only time they have to tell the truth is to the court, under oath. Often there will be an he said/she said component of an incident, as the one you described. This is what the courts are for: to sort out the wheat from the chaff and make a determination as to what actually transpired and render judgment as to what laws, if any were broken and the consequences of same.



Which may or may not arise to the level of reasonable suspicion. The Albuquerque police were called. They had a reason to come to the moat. They asked to cooperate with the TSA, which he apparently refused. Here is where I'm not clear. They might have asked him to identify himself to them. They were investigating a call, which does might give rise to reasonable suspicion. They have a witness (TSA), and asked Phil to provide identification, which is where it gets gray. If the cop, in the course of investigating the TSA complaint, did indeed ask him for identification, and he refused, then it is likely he did break the law.

NMSA 30-22-3 makes it a crime in NM to refuse to identify oneself with intent to hinder or interrupt a public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty. The cop was called to investigate an incident. Phil was involved in that incident. If the cops ordered Phil to identify himself to them and he did, as Steve Beirfeldt did when the TSA tried to have him arrested for carrying $4,700 in cash, then there would be no case, and likely no incident. Whether or not a violation of the statutes took place is a question for judge and jury, with all facts in hand and witnesses examined in open court.
So what you're telling me is a cop is called in, and assumes suspicious because of the call? Well then that means every time a cop is called then he will automatically assume suspicious... now there's a problem because the law prohibits such that's why you need probable cause to even search a person or vehicle.

If I'm an LEO called to settle a dispute (which this seemed to be) two parties (Phill vs TSA) if I asked Phill to cooperate with TSA and his response was kindly no then I'd advise him that he would not be able to enter the secure area without showing ID and there is nothing else further I could do; now if he had tried to gain entry to a secure area prior to "my arrival" or "in my presence" now I have probable cause and suspicion.

But as far as I'm concerned, beyond asking him to cooperate there is not a thing I could do nor would do as an LEO; but then again I'm not an LEO cuz they'd never let me for this reason.

You could also argue that someone refusing to show ID is suspicious enough, whereas someone showing ID would dismiss any suspicion. I disagree, I would need more than refusal to cooperate/show ID to assume suspicion.

Originally Posted by motorguy View Post
I don't think I agree, but maybe I don't understand the argument. It seems to me that, once I have shown the good folks who claim to be providing safety of travel who I am, they should let me go on my way without further inquiry. After all, I am not a threat and they know it. However, once I do show my identification, the TSA still insists on treating me like criminal. I don't like that at all. But establishing that I am indeed me doesn't bother me.
The TSA make this worse by asking for your ID at the gate at some airports just before you board the plane, but they JUST checked your ID as soon as you cleared the screening checkpoint; what's up with this OVER-redundancy? How can you switch your ticket with some baddy once you've crossed over airside? Everybody has to have a boarding pass beyond the screening point on the airside part of the terminal.

Anybody have any idea? All they do is look at your ID, they don't even look at your boarding pass, you only give your boarding pass to the gate agent. However TSA has already looked at both your ID and boarding pass at the screening checkpoint, I fail to see how this works beyond the checkpoint?

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Dec 13, 10 at 2:10 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
mynetdude is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 10:22 pm
  #906  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian View Post
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.
I could do without the holier-than-thou impression the "you people" comment leaves.

Minus that comment, I can say this is a very spot-on post and agree with what FH said.
LessO2 is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 10:32 pm
  #907  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Who's in charge?

Originally Posted by tehiota View Post
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.
It seems that way, doesn't it? TSA staff don't have the power to detain or arrest, but I repeatedly read reports of TSA airport security guards calling the police to hassle -- even arrest, sometimes -- people who are accused of violating TSA's seemingly unwritten rules.

In the Flyertalk "BNA Police Officer Threatens Arrest for Filming TSA Checkpoint, Confiscates Phone" thread, a Flyertalk user who claims to have worked as an airport police officer wrote about getting daily updates about TSA's ever-changing policies, but despite repeated requests for him to explain what bearing TSA policy has on his job of enforcing the law, he has not done so.
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:00 pm
  #908  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,945
Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian View Post
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.

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.
Although your post was not in response to my ignored inquiry, you believe that because Phil was petulant is the reason Phil should be "prosecute[d] to the full extent of the law"? That would constitute sufficient facts to support sending $100 to the city?

Others posters have discussed reasonable suspicion as being the standard for requiring identification. And that is the case, but it requires reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is or is about to be committed. What crime did the LEO reasonably suspect had, is or is about to be committed when TSA called him on to the scene? That Phil was filming illegally? If the LEO knew his stuff, then he would know that on the facts presented to him by TSA, no crime had occurred and he would have no reasonable suspicion to demand Phil's name.
ND Sol is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:05 pm
  #909  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by mynetdude View Post
So what you're telling me is a cop is called in, and assumes suspicious because of the call? Well then that means every time a cop is called then he will automatically assume suspicious... now there's a problem because the law prohibits such that's why you need probable cause to even search a person or vehicle.

If I'm an LEO called to settle a dispute (which this seemed to be) two parties (Phill vs TSA) if I asked Phill to cooperate with TSA and his response was kindly no then I'd advise him that he would not be able to enter the secure area without showing ID and there is nothing else further I could do; now if he had tried to gain entry to a secure area prior to "my arrival" or "in my presence" now I have probable cause and suspicion.

But as far as I'm concerned, beyond asking him to cooperate there is not a thing I could do nor would do as an LEO; but then again I'm not an LEO cuz they'd never let me for this reason.

You could also argue that someone refusing to show ID is suspicious enough, whereas someone showing ID would dismiss any suspicion. I disagree, I would need more than refusal to cooperate/show ID to assume suspicion.
No. The cop must use his judgment. They are called by citizens for all manner of reasons, including not so valid ones. Your argument strengthens Phil's defense, in that if the TSA issued an unlawful directive, Phil is within his right not to obey that unlawful order. This could be explained to a cop, provided the cops are willing to listen. Not all are.

Once the cop demanded Phil identify himself to the police, as part of their investigation, if indeed he did make such an order, then Phil is required to identify himself. That's the law. He did not/does not have to identify himself to the TSA, according to what I have read and understand. If the police only ordered Phil to identify himself to the TSA, and not to the police, then they are indeed out of line. This will be the questions before the courts.

I would never argue that someone refusing to show or disclose identification is reasonable suspicion, ever, absent the rather strict limits the Supreme Court has placed on this. The grounds for reasonable suspicion in this matter arise from the TSA complaint. That Phil's subsequent actions and those of the police and/or TSA may or may not have exacerbated the situation is another matter.

The police may not walk up to me in a public place, and without justification order me to identify myself. I would be perfectly justified in ignoring such a request. However, if I just left a liquor store in the inner city and the alarm was ringing, they would be justified as they had clear indications that a crime had been committed, and as they had observed me leaving the store.
greentips is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:46 pm
  #910  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by greentips View Post
No. The cop must use his judgment. They are called by citizens for all manner of reasons, including not so valid ones. Your argument strengthens Phil's defense, in that if the TSA issued an unlawful directive, Phil is within his right not to obey that unlawful order. This could be explained to a cop, provided the cops are willing to listen. Not all are.

Once the cop demanded Phil identify himself to the police, as part of their investigation, if indeed he did make such an order, then Phil is required to identify himself. That's the law. He did not/does not have to identify himself to the TSA, according to what I have read and understand. If the police only ordered Phil to identify himself to the TSA, and not to the police, then they are indeed out of line. This will be the questions before the courts.

I would never argue that someone refusing to show or disclose identification is reasonable suspicion, ever, absent the rather strict limits the Supreme Court has placed on this. The grounds for reasonable suspicion in this matter arise from the TSA complaint. That Phil's subsequent actions and those of the police and/or TSA may or may not have exacerbated the situation is another matter.

The police may not walk up to me in a public place, and without justification order me to identify myself. I would be perfectly justified in ignoring such a request. However, if I just left a liquor store in the inner city and the alarm was ringing, they would be justified as they had clear indications that a crime had been committed, and as they had observed me leaving the store.
Seems like we're getting on point here I don't have a problem producing ID as required by law, simply being asked to produce ID in this case like Phill I would have refused, A) there isn't any reasonable suspicion and B) if the LEO ordered him to produce ID for TSA then as you said, this is questionable.

The LAW requires a person to produce some kind of ID identifying who they are, but the LAW says LEOs can't do this without suspicion (IIRC also known as probable cause) I don't think there was any, but I wasn't there.

There doesn't seem to be a valid or non-valid reason for the LEO to prompt them to ask for Phill's ID in this thread or did I miss anything? Again, in a hypothetical situation if I'm an LEO using my judgment/common sense, where have I need to ask Phill for his ID? He hasn't broken any laws that we can see here on this thread; now Phill may have broken the law by not producing ID to ABQ PD but without proper probable cause Phill breaking the law seems to be moot.

Cops are getting dumber, they are just humans in a uniform with bling blings.
mynetdude is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:48 pm
  #911  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Catania, Sicily/South Jersey (PHL)/Houston, Texas/airborne in-between
Programs: United Global Svcs, AA ExecPlat, WN RR, AZ Freccia Alata+, Hilton gold, SPG/Marriot Gold, Hertz Prez
Posts: 3,190
Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
Although your post was not in response to my ignored inquiry, you believe that because Phil was petulant is the reason Phil should be "prosecute[d] to the full extent of the law"? That would constitute sufficient facts to support sending $100 to the city?

Others posters have discussed reasonable suspicion as being the standard for requiring identification. And that is the case, but it requires reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is or is about to be committed. What crime did the LEO reasonably suspect had, is or is about to be committed when TSA called him on to the scene? That Phil was filming illegally? If the LEO knew his stuff, then he would know that on the facts presented to him by TSA, no crime had occurred and he would have no reasonable suspicion to demand Phil's name.
Not exactly sure what your "ignored" inquiry was. If you want to ask me something and make sure I see it send me a PM. I'm flying, on average 1.5 hours a day, and can't check forums every few hours. That being said, when did I make any statement about RS, or the "full extent of the law"? Maybe I just want to see him prosecuted because I am mean (not the reason BTW) or because I disagree with his actions 110% (one reason).

Question for you-How do you think this is going to change the TSA or its policies? (hint-it isn't)
PMocek is not a Patrick Henry, or Rosa Parks type, trailblazing for our rights versus the TSA's inane and inept policies. If anything, in a small way, this distracts & takes away from the legit fight against the TSA lunacy. Maybe PMocek is your posterboy for fighting TSA abuse. He is certainly not mine. I'd rather take actions that could actually affect changes in national level policy. This small episode of checkpoint drama is not that.

Ciao,
FH
FlyingHoustonian is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:49 pm
  #912  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
Originally Posted by mynetdude View Post
Seems like we're getting on point here I don't have a problem producing ID as required by law, simply being asked to produce ID in this case like Phill I would have refused, A) there isn't any reasonable suspicion and B) if the LEO ordered him to produce ID for TSA then as you said, this is questionable.

The LAW requires a person to produce some kind of ID identifying who they are, but the LAW says LEOs can't do this without suspicion (IIRC also known as probable cause) I don't think there was any, but I wasn't there.

There doesn't seem to be a valid or non-valid reason for the LEO to prompt them to ask for Phill's ID in this thread or did I miss anything? Again, in a hypothetical situation if I'm an LEO using my judgment/common sense, where have I need to ask Phill for his ID? He hasn't broken any laws that we can see here on this thread; now Phill may have broken the law by not producing ID to ABQ PD but without proper probable cause Phill breaking the law seems to be moot.

Cops are getting dumber, they are just humans in a uniform with bling blings.
IANAL
That being said, IIRC, in Hiibel, SCOTUS ruled that laws requiring someone to verbally identify oneself are constitutional. However, I believe they went on to state that laws requiring the production of a physical identification document would be held unconstitutional. Will have to look up the case opinions this evening, after I get done with work for the day.

Last edited by DevilDog438; Dec 6, 10 at 1:13 am
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Dec 5, 10, 11:55 pm
  #913  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,349
Originally Posted by meisterau View Post

Phil, only sentiment from flyertalk posters. The rest of the public (majority) is firmly behind TSA
To quote from a 11-22-2010 article by Ron Port:

"A recent poll indicated that 81% of the American public approved of, or at least didn’t mind, the new TSA screening tactics. But I would suggest that less than 10% of the American public has been subjected to the screenings or even observed them first hand. I would also argue that the approval numbers for those who have had their bodies groped and/or scanned would be much, much lower.

The fewer people the TSA gropes in the short term the higher the approval ratings for these new tactics will remain. Which is why those who feel that this is an atrocious abuse of government power must act."


The polls takers should ask each person who says they approve of the TSA abuses whether they travel by air or whether they or their family have been subjected to the abuses or whether they have seen passengers being groped.

I suspect a good portion of 81% who say they approve of TSA are people who rarely fly or are non thinkers.

Hermann Goering had it right when he said "But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I think we all know who Goering was.
-
dgcpaphd is online now  
Old Dec 6, 10, 12:53 am
  #914  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Purgatory
Programs: Too many to list. Status is a half dozen.
Posts: 9,232
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
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.
This is a tangent but there's plenty of that, so here's my thought. I'd rather not identify myself at all just to utilize a company's services either. At the same time, this scenario has occurred to my mind. Let's assume airline tickets aren't tied to names. Person A buys a ticket and gives to Person B. Person B now has a valid ticket paid for by someone else. But what if Person B has previously been banned by the airline for whatever reason? The airline has a business right to refuse service to anyone.

That's an airline's business choice, of course, and not the responsibility of DHS or any of its entities.
ArizonaGuy is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 1:10 am
  #915  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
Originally Posted by ArizonaGuy View Post
The airline has a business right to refuse service to anyone.
No, they don't. They operate as common carriers.
pmocek is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: