Firebug4

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

PhoenixRev

And the Supreme Court has stipulated that I can identify myself by simply stating my name.

Firebug4

Yes, that is the way it works. I have not indicated otherwise.

FB

gojirasan

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.

MikeMpls

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.

Firebug4

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

ghostrider10

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.).

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).

flyinbob

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?

DevilDog438

I would advise a search for this, as this topic has been discussed, ad nauseum, in other threads on this forum.

tehiota

Ditch the NoS, bring back 100% WTMD.
Implement Bomb Sniffing dogs at the checkpoints.
EDS all Belly Freight for explosives

PTravel

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.

thadocta

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

moondog

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.)

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).

Ari

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.

I don't believe that is entirely true; mistake of fact is a defense, but mistake of law is not necessarily a defense.

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.

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.

It works that way in transoceanic markets, too.

flyinbob

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.

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.