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, 12:11 pm
  #931  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
Lots of .....ing, but little constructive suggestions.
How about we stop the bullet train of fear, realize that free societies have some risk, and insist on decent, cost-effective security provided by an accountable organization?
ScatterX is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 12:22 pm
  #932  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by ScatterX View Post
How about we stop the bullet train of fear, realize that free societies have some risk, and insist on decent, cost-effective security provided by an accountable organization?
Because doing that requires reasonable, intelligent people to debate, participate in the democratic process and exercise good judgement. When is the last time you saw that happen in this country in any numbers approaching what would be necessary to accomplish this very noble goal?
CitizenTerrorist is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 1:24 pm
  #933  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
Originally Posted by ScatterX View Post
How about we stop the bullet train of fear, realize that free societies have some risk, and insist on decent, cost-effective security provided by an accountable organization?
Time-out for five minutes, until attitudes improve...
sbagdon is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 1:25 pm
  #934  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Originally Posted by CitizenTerrorist View Post
Because doing that requires reasonable, intelligent people to debate, participate in the democratic process and exercise good judgement. When is the last time you saw that happen in this country in any numbers approaching what would be necessary to accomplish this very noble goal?
Very rarely. At the risk of being flamed to death, the last time was the tea party protests on government spending. It is an interesting analogy, the problem is clear in both cases, but nobody wants to honestly face the solutions.
ScatterX is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 1:53 pm
  #935  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,229
Originally Posted by ScatterX View Post
How about we stop the bullet train of fear, realize that free societies have some risk, and insist on decent, cost-effective security provided by an accountable organization?
Somewhere in this board I posted exactly that sentiment, expanded a bit. But what I'm asking is what you consider "decent, cost-effective security provided by an accountable organization", because I'm guessing that is something there would be LOTS of opinions on.

Yes, the TSA has turned us into a nation of cowards, no question. However, there is a reasonable middle ground that will provide a level of safety without trampling civil rights. The posts in this thread seem to have eliminated most things that people might otherwise think reasonable. So the question is what's next? How do those who suggest eliminating ID checks, and therefore no-fly lists and trusted traveler programs, suggest we proceed?
flyinbob is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 3:02 pm
  #936  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 32,720
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
Somewhere in this board I posted exactly that sentiment, expanded a bit. But what I'm asking is what you consider "decent, cost-effective security provided by an accountable organization", because I'm guessing that is something there would be LOTS of opinions on.

Yes, the TSA has turned us into a nation of cowards, no question. However, there is a reasonable middle ground that will provide a level of safety without trampling civil rights. The posts in this thread seem to have eliminated most things that people might otherwise think reasonable. So the question is what's next? How do those who suggest eliminating ID checks, and therefore no-fly lists and trusted traveler programs, suggest we proceed?
No 'middle ground' approach is going to fly (no pun intended) unless the Chertoff clients and their ilk stand to make at least as much money off it as they do off the current approach. It will also have to be something that has an equal potential to generate profits if pushed worldwide (ie, the US has already exerted pressure on other nations to 'uphold' our 'security' standards. It will only be a matter of time before we insist that our standards can only be met by using our equipment).
chollie is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 3:18 pm
  #937  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
Somewhere in this board I posted exactly that sentiment, expanded a bit. But what I'm asking is what you consider "decent, cost-effective security provided by an accountable organization", because I'm guessing that is something there would be LOTS of opinions on.

Yes, the TSA has turned us into a nation of cowards, no question. However, there is a reasonable middle ground that will provide a level of safety without trampling civil rights. The posts in this thread seem to have eliminated most things that people might otherwise think reasonable. So the question is what's next? How do those who suggest eliminating ID checks, and therefore no-fly lists and trusted traveler programs, suggest we proceed?
I agree with all you've said. My position in that we cannot implement "reasonable and decent" measures by committee or public opinion. TSA bears this burden. Congress must oversee them. We the people must make it clear when we disagree and both the TSA and congress must adapt. Until people stop basing their opinions on fear and emotions and start looking at real risk and what the real problems are, we won't have either freedom or safety.

The reason this is called theater is it doesn't work. We are sacrificing our freedoms for nothing, only an illusion of safety. TSA hasn't even demonstrated they can stop the LAST ATTACK with any measure of effectiveness. It is nearly certain they wont stop the next one, because the bad guys are going to adapt to what TSA is not doing, whatever that may be. TSA cannot be right 100% of the time and shouldn't try. The terrorist only have to be right once. We have to figure out who they are and target our resources at them. The closer we our to their planning stage, the better. Like it or not, we are accepting the risk. TSA is just wasting our money and grabbing our nuts.
ScatterX is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 3:18 pm
  #938  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,712
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
The posts in this thread seem to have eliminated most things that people might otherwise think reasonable. So the question is what's next? How do those who suggest eliminating ID checks, and therefore no-fly lists and trusted traveler programs, suggest we proceed?
Do you think that a secret government blacklist of individuals who are not allowed to board a domestic flight, which is not subject to any due process standard, has no effective means of redress, and has no accountability whatsoever, to be reasonable? I don't.

If someone is too dangerous to fly, then they are too dangerous to be allowed in a shopping mall, or on a street. Develop probable cause, arrest them, charge them, and try them on criminal charges in an open court of law as provided for in the Constitution. If there isn't sufficient evidence to do that, why should they not be allowed to fly?

I'm all in favor of effective police work. But effective police work does not require arbitrary checkpoints for ID and blacklist checks. We don't do it, or allow it, on street corners. Why have we let it creep into airports? The police have successfully arrested criminals for years without resorting to unconstitutional and un-American dragnets and checkpoints.
studentff is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 3:41 pm
  #939  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL DM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy Titanium, Hyatt Explorist, others
Posts: 11,515
Originally Posted by greentips View Post
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.
One identifies one's self by stating one's name or providing said name in writing. That was done; the boarding pass contained the name. The police officer, as far as I can tell, never requested that Phis identify himself; rather, he demanded that Phil produce identification documents, which the Supreme Court has ruled is beyond his legal ability to require.

Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian View Post
The problem here is you people think this case will have some bearing on the TSA. It will not.
Until it does: the countersuit against the police will have the longer-term effect that, when a Security Theater Authority agent calls the police and whines "That passenger refused to Respect Mah Authoritah" the police officer will be a lot less likely to support him.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Dec 13, 10 at 2:08 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
sethb is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 3:53 pm
  #940  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by sethb View Post
One identifies one's self by stating one's name or providing said name in writing. That was done; the boarding pass contained the name. The police officer, as far as I can tell, never requested that Phis identify himself; rather, he demanded that Phil produce identification documents, which the Supreme Court has ruled is beyond his legal ability to require.
Moreover, I don't agree that "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". That statute makes concealing one's identity a crime. "Conceal" is an active verb and requires taking some action to hide one's identity. I'd be interested in seeing how the courts have interpreted this statute, but in plain English, if you leave your glasses on my table and I don't touch them but decide not to answer your question of "where are my glasses", I haven't "concealed" (hidden) them.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 4:11 pm
  #941  
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 sethb View Post
One identifies one's self by stating one's name or providing said name in writing. That was done; the boarding pass contained the name. The police officer, as far as I can tell, never requested that Phis identify himself; rather, he demanded that Phil produce identification documents, which the Supreme Court has ruled is beyond his legal ability to require.

Have they actually ruled that, or have they merely ruled that requiring you to state your name is not unreasonable? If only the latter, there's still a gray area here.
MikeMpls is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 4:12 pm
  #942  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: LAS
Posts: 1,279
Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
Moreover, I don't agree that "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". That statute makes concealing one's identity a crime. "Conceal" is an active verb and requires taking some action to hide one's identity. I'd be interested in seeing how the courts have interpreted this statute, but in plain English, if you leave your glasses on my table and I don't touch them but decide not to answer your question of "where are my glasses", I haven't "concealed" (hidden) them.
Absolutely. I don't see the officer had a duty in this case (although he may have thought he did). Phil had done nothing wrong, other than annoy an ignorant TSA stooge that didn't understand his own rules. No duty, nothing to obstruct. Regardless, I don't see how phil obstructed anything. He was complying with the rules for both the ID and video processes. If the officer was investigating, he had sufficient information to figure out what happened and had Phil's name. Im wondering if the officer asked for the papers of the TSA person? If he was conducting an investigation, the rules should apply equally to both parties. If he was only providing the lock-step intimidation role for TSA, then Phil would be under no obligation to cooperate. It seems to me the LEO was (incorrectly) enforcing the TSA process, not investigating anything.
ScatterX is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 4:38 pm
  #943  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by ScatterX View Post
Absolutely. I don't see the officer had a duty in this case (although he may have thought he did). Phil had done nothing wrong, other than annoy an ignorant TSA stooge that didn't understand his own rules. No duty, nothing to obstruct. Regardless, I don't see how phil obstructed anything. He was complying with the rules for both the ID and video processes. If the officer was investigating, he had sufficient information to figure out what happened and had Phil's name. Im wondering if the officer asked for the papers of the TSA person? If he was conducting an investigation, the rules should apply equally to both parties. If he was only providing the lock-step intimidation role for TSA, then Phil would be under no obligation to cooperate. It seems to me the LEO was (incorrectly) enforcing the TSA process, not investigating anything.
Without knowing all of the facts (which, of course, are known only to Phil's attorney and Phil), I'd say that you have succinctly stated the gravamen of Phil's defense, one with which I agree and I certainly hope Phil will be acquitted (and pursue additional action as appropriate).
PTravel is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 4:49 pm
  #944  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by MikeMpls View Post
Have they actually ruled that, or have they merely ruled that requiring you to state your name is not unreasonable? If only the latter, there's still a gray area here.
There are two cases, Hiibel and KOLENDER v. LAWSON, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). Although it's hard to point to any one sentence or paragraph from each, it's pretty clear that both taken together make it difficult or impossible to construct a statute which would require more and meet Constitutional muster.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 4:51 pm
  #945  
Moderator: Marriott Bonvoy & Travel with Children
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,728
Originally Posted by flyinbob View Post
Yes, the TSA has turned us into a nation of cowards, no question....
I disagree. The TSA did not turn us into anything. We became (or perhaps realized that we already were) a nation of cowards on 9/11/01, and a nation of cowards will always demand the creation of monstrosities like the TSA. We made our bed, and now we lie in it. Unfortunately, we are still a nation of cowards, and the TSA isn't quite bad enough yet for the people to want to slay the dragon that they created. Soon, I hope.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: