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 6, 10, 1:10 am
  #916  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
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.
Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause are two different standards. Reasonable Suspicion being the lower of the two standards. You are using the two term interchangeably. They are not the same thing. If there is a dispute and police are called to the dispute to investigate the it is reasonable in the investigation of that dispute to know who is involved in that dispute.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 1:19 am
  #917  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
If there is a dispute and police are called to the dispute to investigate the it is reasonable in the investigation of that dispute to know who is involved in that dispute.
And the Supreme Court has stipulated that I can identify myself by simply stating my name.
PhoenixRev is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 1:23 am
  #918  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by PhoenixRev View Post
And the Supreme Court has stipulated that I can identify myself by simply stating my name.
Yes, that is the way it works. I have not indicated otherwise.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 2:49 am
  #919  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 629
Originally Posted by Firebug4 View Post
If there is a dispute and police are called to the dispute to investigate the it is reasonable in the investigation of that dispute to know who is involved in that dispute.
But it is not necessary for the officer to know the names or any other personal information of the individuals. At least not at first. The first thing the officer should be doing when an individual is accused of a crime is to get both stories and the stories of any impartial witnesses. I mean what exactly is the LEO supposed to do with a name anyway? I don't see how it helps at all. Even if the LEO believes he has cause to make an arrest it doesn't help.

LEOs don't approach a situation like this one impartially. They approach it from a biased pro-authority, pro-government POV. Those TSOs were probably their friends. It is really unfortunate for our society that a sense of fairness and neutrality is not important for most LEOs. They don't feel any responsibility for what is true and what is right. They care only about how much power they can get away with asserting over others. They are drunk on their own sense of authority and importance. If anyone resists them in any way it seems to diminish their authority and power and they lash out with everything they can legally (or sometimes even illegally) get away with. To them refusing to answer even the most trivial question is a provocation. A challenge to their dominance and authority. It is all schoolyard/playground psychology. These people have never grown out of that.
gojirasan is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 3:01 am
  #920  
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 greentips View Post
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.
Time is on our side -- most of those supporting TSA just haven't been groped or stripsearched yet. Their turns will come, in time, and their opinions will shift. What the the polls currently show is that people who fly enough to have been opposed to TSA's current direction disapprove of it. Those who fly less often will take longer to see the light.

When it's time for the Griswolds to make their every-other-year trip to Wally World and they watch their daughter get her first grope from a clerk, their opinions will change. We will win, one grope at a time.

In the meantime, it's up to each individual to resist TSA as he or she is best able to. pmocek's specialty is not producing ID. To each his own.
MikeMpls is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 3:10 am
  #921  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,347
Originally Posted by gojirasan View Post
But it is not necessary for the officer to know the names or any other personal information of the individuals. At least not at first. The first thing the officer should be doing when an individual is accused of a crime is to get both stories and the stories of any impartial witnesses. I mean what exactly is the LEO supposed to do with a name anyway? I don't see how it helps at all. Even if the LEO believes he has cause to make an arrest it doesn't help.

LEOs don't approach a situation like this one impartially. They approach it from a biased pro-authority, pro-government POV. Those TSOs were probably their friends. It is really unfortunate for our society that a sense of fairness and neutrality is not important for most LEOs. They don't feel any responsibility for what is true and what is right. They care only about how much power they can get away with asserting over others. They are drunk on their own sense of authority and importance. If anyone resists them in any way it seems to diminish their authority and power and they lash out with everything they can legally (or sometimes even illegally) get away with. To them refusing to answer even the most trivial question is a provocation. A challenge to their dominance and authority. It is all schoolyard/playground psychology. These people have never grown out of that.
The courts do not agree with you. The individuals name is relevant if in the course of the investigation if the subject absconds. This information can be used to locate the suspect since that is what he made himself when he absconded. The presence of wants and warrants for the people that are involved in the investigation has also been ruled relevant for the officers safety while conducting that investigation.

FB
Firebug4 is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 6:39 am
  #922  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by mynetdude View Post
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.
The courts have ruled otherwise. It has repeatedly been ruled over and over again that ignorance of the law by the LEO does not require the LEO to release the suspect; or make the detainment or arrest of the suspect initially unconstitutional. It is actually the DA's job to ensure that a case is prosecutable or not. Hence the "we can hold him for 48 hours while the DA decides whether to indict him or not" concept. If the DA thinks he can prosecute (and more importantly: either win or get a favorable (to the state) legal precedent set), then it doesn't matter what the LEO did in the first place as long as the LEO had PC. It is only in the case when the DA has no case (heh) (or, more importantly, has decided that prosecution of the case may be unwinnable or unable to set a legal precedent in favor of the state), that LE is required to release the suspect. Remember, a suspect can incriminate himself either before or after Miranda has been read and such testimony will be admissible in court against the suspect. Furthermore, DAs also know that suspects can be pressured to cop a favorable-to-the-state plea with a variety of methods (confinement due to excessive bail, restrictions on travel, red tape causing the defendant's lawyer fees to multiply, etc.).

Originally Posted by ND Sol View Post
Mr. LEO, perhaps you recall that maxim, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
As per my post above, such a concept does not apply to LEOs. By the time the LEO has been called to the witness stand, the testimony he gives has already been ruled admissible by the judge and you can probably bet the farm that they've been thoroughly coached by the DA to avoid testimony getting thrown out (or if the particular DA is particularly devious, s/he'll be willing to have it officially thrown out but not before the jury hears it anyway).

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Dec 13, 10 at 2:09 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
ghostrider10 is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 8:51 am
  #923  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,229
Just for my curiosity, those who want both the current TSA screening procedures gone as well as any identification of passengers AND the no-fly list (and seem to have no problem if Osama was sitting next to you on the plane), what sort of security do you think should be in place for airlines/aircraft? Any at all? What acceptable measures can be taken to prevent the next shoe or underwear bomber? I assume that in wanting the current invasive TSA practices gone, you want something in their place? Right?
flyinbob is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 9:00 am
  #924  
 
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 flyinbob View Post
Just for my curiosity, those who want both the current TSA screening procedures gone as well as any identification of passengers AND the no-fly list (and seem to have no problem if Osama was sitting next to you on the plane), what sort of security do you think should be in place for airlines/aircraft? Any at all? What acceptable measures can be taken to prevent the next shoe or underwear bomber? I assume that in wanting the current invasive TSA practices gone, you want something in their place? Right?
I would advise a search for this, as this topic has been discussed, ad nauseum, in other threads on this forum.
DevilDog438 is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 9:16 am
  #925  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 191
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
Just for my curiosity, those who want both the current TSA screening procedures gone as well as any identification of passengers AND the no-fly list (and seem to have no problem if Osama was sitting next to you on the plane), what sort of security do you think should be in place for airlines/aircraft? Any at all? What acceptable measures can be taken to prevent the next shoe or underwear bomber? I assume that in wanting the current invasive TSA practices gone, you want something in their place? Right?
Ditch the NoS, bring back 100% WTMD.
Implement Bomb Sniffing dogs at the checkpoints.
EDS all Belly Freight for explosives
tehiota is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 9:25 am
  #926  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
By the time the LEO has been called to the witness stand, the testimony he gives has already been ruled admissible by the judge . . .
I have no idea where you're getting this, but you're wrong. Even if the subject matter of the LEO's testimony has been the subject of an unsuccessful motion in limine to exclude it, the LEO's testimony can still be objected to and, if the objection has merit, the judge will sustain it and exclude the particular testimony that prompted the objection.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff but a lot of it is urban myth. District Attorney is a political position and decisions whether or not to prosecute are often made based on political considerations rather than legal ones. I don't know what has motivated Phil's prosecution, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if political pressure was brought to bear on the DA.
PTravel is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 10:18 am
  #927  
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Katoomba (Blue Mountains)
Programs: Mucci
Posts: 8,083
Originally Posted by ArizonaGuy View Post
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.
There is also the ridiculous situation, peculiar to the US, where a return ticket (with certain conditions, such as staying away over a weekend) is cheaper than two one-ways.

This encourages people travelling one-way try to on-sell the return portion of the trip, which then encourages identity fraud.

Of course, if you could get a decent fare system, which did not require people to purchase return fares (which are cheaper than one-way fares) then this would not be required.

Dave
thadocta is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 10:31 am
  #928  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
2020 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 30,947
Originally Posted by thadocta View Post
There is also the ridiculous situation, peculiar to the US, where a return ticket (with certain conditions, such as staying away over a weekend) is cheaper than two one-ways.

This encourages people travelling one-way try to on-sell the return portion of the trip, which then encourages identity fraud.
That's exactly how things worked when I was a kid; the newspaper classifieds were chalked full of "3/31, bos-lax, y class" and the like. But, if that does happen now, it's on a much smaller scale and probably mostly in family. (BTW, there is a facebook group for people that share my exact name with 100+ members.)

Of course, if you could get a decent fare system, which did not require people to purchase return fares (which are cheaper than one-way fares) then this would not be required.
For the most part, the vast majority domestic fares are priced on a one way basis now, and have been for the past ~5 years. International fares are often cheaper round trip, but this phenomenon is not unique to the US (e.g. same deal ex-China).
moondog is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 11:21 am
  #929  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,011
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
"Not necessarily"? When is an arrest on trumped-up charges ever an appropriate use of resources?
When there is no other option to ensure public safety, maybe. Cops need discretion, the problem is that some abuse that discretion and use it to further their own agendas, so much that it has to be taken away.

Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
The courts have ruled otherwise. It has repeatedly been ruled over and over again that ignorance of the law by the LEO does not require the LEO to release the suspect; or make the detainment or arrest of the suspect initially unconstitutional.
I don't believe that is entirely true; mistake of fact is a defense, but mistake of law is not necessarily a defense.

Originally Posted by PTravel View Post
I have no idea where you're getting this, but you're wrong. Even if the subject matter of the LEO's testimony has been the subject of an unsuccessful motion in limine to exclude it, the LEO's testimony can still be objected to and, if the objection has merit, the judge will sustain it and exclude the particular testimony that prompted the objection.
Yes; we had our Chief United States District Judge here mandammussed after doing something like that . . . though there might have been other issues in play.

Originally Posted by PTravel View Post
I don't know where you're getting this stuff but a lot of it is urban myth. District Attorney is a political position and decisions whether or not to prosecute are often made based on political considerations rather than legal ones. I don't know what has motivated Phil's prosecution, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if political pressure was brought to bear on the DA.
Career prosecutors turn into politicians when they win their first election.

I don't think anyone other than the cops have said anything to the DA; this is a minor case. I don't think the TSA cares about it, nor any elected official.

I don't know if it will be a 6-person jury or a 12-person jury, when I served, I was not the only one who believed police abuse their powers and the others were shocked to hear the stories we told over lunch of police misconduct in other cases. (Being on a jury is awesome-- you get to ignore the law and be it at the same time, though I would never do anything unethical like prejudice a defendant . This was in a criminal case). I can only imagine those people on Phil's jury hearing the "being stupid" line and harping it during deliberations.

Originally Posted by thadocta View Post
There is also the ridiculous situation, peculiar to the US, where a return ticket (with certain conditions, such as staying away over a weekend) is cheaper than two one-ways.
It works that way in transoceanic markets, too.
Ari is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 11:38 am
  #930  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,229
Originally Posted by DevilDog438 View Post
I would advise a search for this, as this topic has been discussed, ad nauseum, in other threads on this forum.
I was looking for a connect between any other idea and the rant that suggests ALL security attempts should be withdrawn. The ID thing in particular, since others have suggested a "trusted traveler" program. It seems those here opposed to any ID requirement would then be opposed to such a traveler proram too.

Originally Posted by tehiota View Post
Ditch the NoS, bring back 100% WTMD.
Implement Bomb Sniffing dogs at the checkpoints.
EDS all Belly Freight for explosives
But we know the magnetometers are horrible at detecting guns and knives, and while I like the bomb sniffing dogs others have genuine fear of dogs or serious allergies. What about them?

Lots of .....ing, but little constructive suggestions.
flyinbob is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: