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, 5:55 pm
  #946  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by bdschobel View Post
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
They are on the exponential of the arrogance curve. It may be sooner than you (or I) think.

Originally Posted by FlyingHoustonian View Post
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
FH,
Up until 10 minutes ago, I agreed. I received a news brief that the TSA intends to ever expand itself into more areas.

I now conclude that civil disobedience may become necessary to stop this juggernaut. Acts of civil disobedience were initially unhelpful, and occasionally counterproductive to the civil rights movement and the Viet Nam anti-War movement. Ultimately, when a critical mass was reached, the country changed, for the better. Both were painful times in our history, and I am certain stopping the TSA/DHS and the governmental forces that created and promulgate them will be more painful. But if we don't stop them, we might as well start building a Berlin wall, right now.

Phil may be at the tip of that iceberg, and others will surely follow.
greentips is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 6:17 pm
  #947  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: SNA
Programs: UA Million Mile Nobody, Marriott Platinum Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 25,229
Originally Posted by bdschobel View Post
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
You're right. I was far too narrow in my accusation. Indeed the TSA and DHS are the result of our being led into cowardice, and it is our responsibility to get ourselves out.
flyinbob is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 6:35 pm
  #948  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SYD (usually), GVA (occasionally)
Programs: QF PS, EK-Gold, Security Theatre Critic
Posts: 4,605
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.
This has explained before, but the same process can apply whether someone is on the gov't No Fly List or your (hypothetical) airline's "banned list."

Person A (no restriction on flying) buys a ticket in his own name. He gives the details to Person B (who is not "allowed" to fly). Mr B checks in online and prints a boarding pass that says "Mr A." He then photoshops the boarding pass to say "Mr B" and prints a second copy.

Mr B goes to the airport and shows the TDC smurf his ID document which says "Mr B" along with the boarding pass that says "Mr B." Surprise, surprise - they match and TDC smurf lets him through. He folds up the "Mr B" boarding pass and puts it in his bag. At the gate, he reaches into the same bag and pulls out the "Mr A" boarding pass, which he uses to board the plane.

There are four things that need to line up - (1) the person's face, (2) the photo on the ID card, (3) the name on the boarding pass and (4) the (absence of a) name on the NFL. The purchase of a ticket checks (3) and (4) but not (1) and (2). TDC smurf checks (1), (2) and (3) but not (4). One more reason the whole ID thing is theater, and bad theater at that.

Last edited by RadioGirl; Dec 6, 10 at 6:42 pm
RadioGirl is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 9:04 pm
  #949  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: American Airlines AAdvantage, Rapids Reward
Posts: 34,162
Sigh! I don't see how is Phil's behaviors at airport today and he is already on the way to ABQ. He have to be there at the court on-time by tomorrow morning. If he doesn't show up at the court ontime, they could have issued arrested warrant for him. He could have a serious trouble for that.

You probably know better that he cannot allowed to do video recording at TSA checkpoint without explanations from LEO. He does it again and he will getting arrested again. LEO will haul him to the county jails. Because video camera is prohibited at security.
N830MH is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 10:10 pm
  #950  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Purgatory
Programs: Too many to list. Status is a half dozen.
Posts: 9,232
Originally Posted by N830MH View Post
Sigh! I don't see how is Phil's behaviors at airport today and he is already on the way to ABQ. He have to be there at the court on-time by tomorrow morning. If he doesn't show up at the court ontime, they could have issued arrested warrant for him. He could have a serious trouble for that.

You probably know better that he cannot allowed to do video recording at TSA checkpoint without explanations from LEO. He does it again and he will getting arrested again. LEO will haul him to the county jails. Because video camera is prohibited at security.
Phil is in Albuquerque, he posted as much this weekend.

And the whole point of this discussion stems from videotaping a checkpoint which clearly isn't illegal or every news organization in the country would be guilty of this as they filmed at airports across the land for their stories on the new patdowns in November.

Originally Posted by RadioGirl View Post
There are four things that need to line up - (1) the person's face, (2) the photo on the ID card, (3) the name on the boarding pass and (4) the (absence of a) name on the NFL. The purchase of a ticket checks (3) and (4) but not (1) and (2). TDC smurf checks (1), (2) and (3) but not (4). One more reason the whole ID thing is theater, and bad theater at that.
Why does a name have to appear on the plane ticket anyway? Names don't appear on most commuter train tickets sold in the US and just about every train ticket abroad. My name doesn't get printed on a bus ticket.

And since I completely forgot the common carrier situation, a name shouldn't be required on my plane ticket. I'm already on the side of there being no security value and the common carrier argument puts me squarely in the no valid business argument for matching ticket to a name either. If bought with a credit card - well, possibly they have a business argument for preventing fraud but that's a completely different topic.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Dec 13, 10 at 2:08 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
ArizonaGuy is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 10:15 pm
  #951  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SEA
Programs: AS 75K, TK ELPL (*G), BA Gold (OWE), DL GM (ST E+), Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 7,432
Originally Posted by ArizonaGuy View Post
Phil is in Albuquerque, he posted as much this weekend.

And the whole point of this discussion stems from videotaping a checkpoint which clearly isn't illegal or every news organization in the country would be guilty of this as they filmed at airports across the land for their stories on the new patdowns in November.
Its not illegal federally, but individual states, cities, and airports can create their own rules.
PVDtoDEL is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 10:43 pm
  #952  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
Originally Posted by PVDtoDEL View Post
Its not illegal federally, but individual states, cities, and airports can create their own rules.
That may be the case, but Phil was not charged with anything having to do with photographing/videotaping at the airport or checkpoint.

The charges against him are:

1. New Mexico Revised Code 30-20-1: Disorderly conduct
2. Albuquerque Code of Ordinances 12-2-16: Concealing identity with intent to obstruct
3. Albuquerque Code of Ordinances 12-2-19: Resisting, obstructing, or refusing to obey a lawful order of a police officer
4. Albuquerque Code of Ordinances 12-2-3: Criminal trespass
PhoenixRev is offline  
Old Dec 6, 10, 11:33 pm
  #953  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 364
Originally Posted by PVDtoDEL View Post
Its not illegal federally, but individual states, cities, and airports can create their own rules.
Can a rule supersede a law?

Making a rule does not necessarily make it legal to enforce.

And you say "Its not illegal federally", so can a lower government entity or even a private business make some rules that contradict federal law?

Also to note: No laws may contradict any of the Constitution's principles.
Pluma is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 7:01 am
  #954  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by PVDtoDEL View Post
Its not illegal federally, but individual states, cities, and airports can create their own rules.
They can, but it would be hard to see how any rule banning photography or videotaping in any public place would pass a 1st Amendment challenge.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 7:34 am
  #955  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Finally, December 7th is here. Whatever the outcome is of the trial, personally, I'm happy that the end is near as far as this thread's life goes.

Nearly 1,000 posts. Is there any angle to this "incident" that hasn't been covered already?

Last edited by LessO2; Dec 7, 10 at 7:41 am
LessO2 is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 8:09 am
  #956  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
When will we know the outcome?
TXagogo is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 8:18 am
  #957  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 10,037
Originally Posted by TXagogo View Post
When will we know the outcome?
When the jury reads their verdict?
LessO2 is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 8:44 am
  #958  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Denton County, TX
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by LessO2 View Post
When the jury reads their verdict?
Thanks - I haven't read every post so I was not aware of the details regarding the use of a jury.
TXagogo is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 9:54 am
  #959  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by RichardKenner View Post
They can, but it would be hard to see how any rule banning photography or videotaping in any public place would pass a 1st Amendment challenge.
Massachusetts has a state law that prohibits you from filming or recording a police officer, even when s/he's detaining -you- (not to mention anyone else). In a public place. It's not been ruled unconstitutional.
ghostrider10 is offline  
Old Dec 7, 10, 10:08 am
  #960  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by ghostrider10 View Post
Massachusetts has a state law that prohibits you from filming or recording a police officer, even when s/he's detaining -you- (not to mention anyone else). In a public place. It's not been ruled unconstitutional.
Has a court ever ruled on it at all? It would seem that photographing police has an important social purpose and would be one of the hardest photography to constitutionally ban.
RichardKenner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: