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 8, 10, 3:27 am
  #1006  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,011
The TSA wants to help because they don't want any sort of lawsuit, regardless of their defenses.
Ari is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 7:37 am
  #1007  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BHM
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
Who is "Red Beard"?
Presumably this guy on the far rear right of picture:
http://papersplease.org/wp/wp-conten...-witnesses.jpg
ghostrider10 is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 8:28 am
  #1008  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by gojirasan View Post
A TSO is not an LEO. If they witnessed a crime they can be compelled to appear in court as a witness. Unlike a cop, the TSO's job description does not include appearing as a witness in a court case. So, no. I wouldn't expect or want a TSO to get paid to appear in court if my laptop gets stolen. Of course that is particularly true if they are the ones who stole it, which is the most likely scenario. If we were to follow your logic, every witness in court should be paid for their time, and at the same rate they are normally paid. That could get awfully expensive for the state. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it?
TSA policy is that its employees receive "Court Leave" if they are subpoenaed in a court case involving a government or government agency. Court leave is the employees rate of pay without any differential.

The directives on this are very specific. In a case of Jones v. Jones, the employee wouldn't receive Court Leave even if subpoenaed. In State of Maine v. Jones, only if they receive a subpoena. TSA won't extend Court Leave to go to a family members trial unless the employee receives a subpoena.

They only receive Court Leave if their absence causes them to miss work, and only for the time that they are required to miss work. So employees don't receive Court Leave if it is on their day off.

The guidance on wearing the uniform to court is that they must be subpoenaed as a TSA employee. If a TSA employee is a witness because of their status a TSA employee, then they wear their uniform.

castro
castrobenes is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 9:58 am
  #1009  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,278
Originally Posted by gojirasan View Post
If we were to follow your logic, every witness in court should be paid for their time, and at the same rate they are normally paid. That could get awfully expensive for the state. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it?
I know with the contract I worked under ALL city employees received compensation for going to court (paid by the city, not state), so there would not be an increase in taxes (and such an increase would be impossible to get voters to approve in this state, anyway). So, for instance, if a water treatment plant operator on the graveyard shift reports someone trespassing on the property and an arrest is made, he's going to be compensated for going to court. That compensation is already being paid if it's related to employment. He will not be compensated, though, if he observes a theft at K-Mart or a hit and run accident in the mall parking lot as they would not be related to his employment.

Let's take government out of it. Suppose you're an accountant and discover a theft of funds by an employee at your workplace. You wouldn't expect to be compensated for the amount of time you're away from work testifying against an arrested fellow employee? You'd be fine with being in unpaid status if you're at a jury trial for a few days as a result of your employment?

Take it a step further. You're a minimum wage janitor and discover a burglary at the business you're cleaning. You're the only witness and arrests are made of suspects running from the scene. You'd expect that person to spend a few unpaid days away from work and not be compensated, too? Both these incidents occurred during the witnesses employment.

I do think witnesses that appear in court as a result of their employment should be compensated fairly by their employer. Doesn't matter if they're government employees or employees of private companies.
tom911 is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 11:09 am
  #1010  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by tom911 View Post
I know with the contract I worked under ALL city employees received compensation for going to court (paid by the city, not state), so there would not be an increase in taxes (and such an increase would be impossible to get voters to approve in this state, anyway). So, for instance, if a water treatment plant operator on the graveyard shift reports someone trespassing on the property and an arrest is made, he's going to be compensated for going to court. That compensation is already being paid if it's related to employment. He will not be compensated, though, if he observes a theft at K-Mart or a hit and run accident in the mall parking lot as they would not be related to his employment.

Let's take government out of it. Suppose you're an accountant and discover a theft of funds by an employee at your workplace. You wouldn't expect to be compensated for the amount of time you're away from work testifying against an arrested fellow employee? You'd be fine with being in unpaid status if you're at a jury trial for a few days as a result of your employment?

Take it a step further. You're a minimum wage janitor and discover a burglary at the business you're cleaning. You're the only witness and arrests are made of suspects running from the scene. You'd expect that person to spend a few unpaid days away from work and not be compensated, too? Both these incidents occurred during the witnesses employment.

I do think witnesses that appear in court as a result of their employment should be compensated fairly by their employer. Doesn't matter if they're government employees or employees of private companies.
Some employers do, some employers don't. Each employer is different. Why should I pay taxes for work not provided because an employee is in court?

Courts have established compensation of subpoenaed witnesses. They are paid, usually the same as juries. In Michigan its $12/day, plus mileage. One of my employers paid me for jury/witness duty, but I had to surrender the $12/day paid by the county. The other said, take a vacation day and you can keep the 12 bucks.

Courts/litigation are expensive. The only ones being paid to be in court are the judges bailiffs and recorders. Sometimes the lawyers get paid too. And people like district attorneys and plaintiffs with turkey/frivolous cases will use delay of process to hinder, annoy, harm and otherwise inconvenience a citizen by requesting nuisance delays and wallpapering defendants with discovery.
greentips is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 11:43 am
  #1011  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1,438
State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: no trial this week

My trial will not happen this week. With the prosecution's request yesterday for additional time to prepare for trial, my counsel's schedule, and with Judge Fitzwater's military reserve duty to begin Monday, it was not feasible to start a trial on Thursday. A continuance was granted by Judge Fitzwater at the request of my attorney. No new date is set, but it's likely to be in January or February. I will not be making any more court appearances this week.
pmocek is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 12:07 pm
  #1012  
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
Seems like the prosecution is trying to bankrupt you.

I hope to be able to attend on the new trial date.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 1:14 pm
  #1013  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: FLL/LAX/YYZ/TPE
Programs: CO Platinum 1K, United 1K, SPG LT Platinum, National Executive Elite, Platinum TSA Hater
Posts: 33,785
Originally Posted by bdschobel View Post
Seems like the prosecution is trying to bankrupt you.

I hope to be able to attend on the new trial date.

Bruce
I think the prosecutor has used up his last "need more time" card - if the Judge grants another delay, then there is definitely Shenanigans going on all around.

Assuming Phil's attorney returns at the next court date ready to proceed and hasn't given the Prosecutor any reason to ask for more time (new evidence, new witnesses, etc), then the Judge should deny any further delay requests.
bocastephen is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 2:00 pm
  #1014  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 133
He stated that his counsel requested the continuance
sangreal is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 2:00 pm
  #1015  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,011
Originally Posted by sangreal View Post
He stated that his counsel requested the continuance
That's what I read.
Ari is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 3:37 pm
  #1016  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 12,273
Originally Posted by sangreal View Post
He stated that his counsel requested the continuance
However, that was after the prosecutor had his request for a continuance granted earlier in the week, which apparently messed up the defense counsel's calendar.

Don't criminal defendants in New Mexico have a right to a speedy trial. If so, why does Phil keep waiving time?
TWA884 is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 4:46 pm
  #1017  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,973
Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
My trial will not happen this week.
I'm sorry to hear this, Phil. It must be excruciating for you right now.
essxjay is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 6:15 pm
  #1018  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by TWA884 View Post
Don't criminal defendants in New Mexico have a right to a speedy trial. If so, why does Phil keep waiving time?
I'm not Phil, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know New Mexico law. (Heck, I didn't even stay in a Holiday Express last night.) But this is the Internet, so I'll comment anyways.

The problem with the "right to a speedy trial" is that it cuts both ways. Sure, Phil could've insisted that the trial proceed on Thursday. But that probably would've required being reassigned to a new judge (recall, the judge was heading out of town for military reserve duty). Also, it might've meant getting a new legal team; I'm sure that Phil's lawyers have other clients, and his lawyers might have to appear in court for those clients in that time frame as well. Phil also mentioned that the defense plans to call two witnesses; not knowing who those witnesses are, they may have scheduling problems, too.

Good, fast, cheap: choose any two.
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 6:34 pm
  #1019  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Programs: ►QFWP/LTG►VA WP►HyattGlobalist►HiltonGold
Posts: 21,401
To clarify:
  • Phil's counsel's could not make it for Thursday, and
  • Judge Fitzwater's had military reserve duty commencing Monday.
As a result it's been deferred to the new year.
serfty is offline  
Old Dec 8, 10, 6:41 pm
  #1020  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: American Airlines AAdvantage, Rapids Reward
Posts: 34,158
Originally Posted by serfty View Post
To clarify:
  • Phil's counsel's could not make it for Thursday, and
  • Judge Fitzwater's had military reserve duty commencing Monday.
As a result it's been deferred to the new year.
Oh well! Very disappointed the news to hear.

Originally Posted by pmocek View Post
My trial will not happen this week. With the prosecution's request yesterday for additional time to prepare for trial, my counsel's schedule, and with Judge Fitzwater's military reserve duty to begin Monday, it was not feasible to start a trial on Thursday. A continuance was granted by Judge Fitzwater at the request of my attorney. No new date is set, but it's likely to be in January or February. I will not be making any more court appearances this week.
Unfortunately, you couldn't make it to another trials date for this week. Maybe you can have reschedules to New Year or February. Whether if you hear from your defense attorney will find new trials date to be set. Let me know if you have any questions from your lawyer or the judge will find new trials date. They want to take it time to do review the security surveillance camera.
N830MH is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: