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

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 19, 2011, 3:35 pm
  #1216  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by pmocek
On their Facebook wall, they wrote:
The comments are great so far.
Mimi111 is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 4:29 pm
  #1217  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,639
Originally Posted by PoliceStateSurvivor
Not quite. Google "Michael Nifong".
Nifong was removed from office and disbarred due to professional misconduct and ethical violations and was criminally prosecuted for criminal contempt; however, like every other prosecutor in the United States he has absolute immunity from tort liability for monetary damages for malicious prosecution.

The latest case from SCOTUS upholding absolute prosecutorial immunity is Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (2009), a 9-0 decision.

That was followed by the 11th Circuit, in Rehberg v. Paulk, in July 2010 which held that:
Absolute immunity accordingly applies to the prosecutor's actions "in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case." Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. at 995. Prosecutors are immune for appearances in judicial proceedings, including prosecutorial conduct before grand juries, statements made during trial, examination of witnesses, and presentation of evidence in support of a search warrant during a probable cause hearing. Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 490-92, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1942, 114 L.Ed.2d 547 (1991); Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 126, 118 S.Ct. 502, 507-08, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997); see also Van de Kamp, 129 S.Ct. at 861. "A prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from allegations stemming from the prosecutor's function as advocate." Jones, 174 F.3d at 1281. Such absolute immunity also "extends to a prosecutor's acts undertaken. . . in preparing for the initiation of judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State." Id. (quotation marks omitted); accord Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1279-80 (11th Cir.2002) (holding prosecutor who proffered perjured testimony and fabricated exhibits at trial is entitled to absolute immunity, but a prosecutor who participated in the search of a suspect's apartment is entitled to only qualified immunity).

If a prosecutor functions in a capacity unrelated to his role as an advocate for the state, he is not protected by absolute immunity but enjoys only qualified immunity. Kalina, 522 U.S. at 121, 118 S.Ct. at 505 (concluding prosecutor was acting as a witness in personally attesting to truth of averments in a "Certification for Determination of Probable Cause" for an arrest warrant and was not absolutely immune for that witness act, but that prosecutor was absolutely immune for preparing and filing an "information charging respondent with burglary and a motion for an arrest warrant).

Last edited by TWA884; Jan 19, 2011 at 4:35 pm
TWA884 is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 5:00 pm
  #1218  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 898
Originally Posted by TWA884
Nifong was removed from office and disbarred due to professional misconduct and ethical violations and was criminally prosecuted for criminal contempt; however, like every other prosecutor in the United States he has absolute immunity from tort liability for monetary damages for malicious prosecution.
I believe he was sued by his victims for damages. The suit alleges that Nifong "engineered a conspiracy to frame the players". Granted, it is a stronger allegation than malicious prosecution, but it shows that there is a way around prosecutorial immunity.

To my knowledge, the suit has not been dismissed. In fact, Nifong filed for bankruptcy because of it.
PoliceStateSurvivor is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 5:43 pm
  #1219  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,639
Originally Posted by PoliceStateSurvivor
I believe he was sued by his victims for damages. The suit alleges that Nifong "engineered a conspiracy to frame the players". Granted, it is a stronger allegation than malicious prosecution, but it shows that there is a way around prosecutorial immunity.

To my knowledge, the suit has not been dismissed. In fact, Nifong filed for bankruptcy because of it.
All I can do is suggest that you read the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit cases which I linked in my earlier posts.

Those are controlling precedents. Cases pending in trial courts in other states have no precedential value and are not citable authorities.
TWA884 is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 5:46 pm
  #1220  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Greater DC
Programs: UA plus
Posts: 12,943
Good Luck, Phil!
GoingAway is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 6:23 pm
  #1221  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,285
Originally Posted by TWA884
Nifong was removed from office and disbarred due to professional misconduct and ethical violations and was criminally prosecuted for criminal contempt; however, like every other prosecutor in the United States he has absolute immunity from tort liability for monetary damages for malicious prosecution.

The latest case from SCOTUS upholding absolute prosecutorial immunity is Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (2009), a 9-0 decision.

That was followed by the 11th Circuit, in Rehberg v. Paulk, in July 2010 which held that:
What do you think of the applicability of Iqbal in this context?
Landing Gear is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 6:24 pm
  #1222  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
Originally Posted by Mimi111
Best of luck! Sending good vibes.
Yes ^ and I am as well.
goalie is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 6:31 pm
  #1223  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Originally Posted by goalie
Yes ^ and I am as well.
Phil, I know you didn't start out to be an American hero, but, that may well turn out to be the case. I'm a guy of faith, so I have no problem declaring that my prayers are with you tomorrow for the wisdom of your attorneys and the judge. There's a lot at stake.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 6:58 pm
  #1224  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 449
Found this article: "Phil Mocek: On Trial For Being TSA Checkpoint Worker's Worst Nightmare." http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/daily...oint_trial.php

Good luck tomorrow, Phil!
Ellie M is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 7:24 pm
  #1225  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 855
Originally Posted by bdschobel
Forget about suing anybody. Everyone is either indemnified or has sovereign immunity. Everyone will claim -- perhaps honestly -- to have acted in good faith. And the threat of a lawsuit will make everybody dig their heels in even deeper than they already are. This is not helpful to Phil.

An acquittal by the jury would be great, but dropping the charges is just as good. No precedents are going to be set either way. Let's just worry about Phil and not try to make this case into more than it is.

Bruce
Aww shucks! OK.

Well it's too late in life for me to adopt the latest styles, so I've been praying for Phil, his lawyers, the court and even the prosecution.

I pray Phil is not harmed, and that wisdom and mercy prevail.

Best of luck tomorrow folks.
ElizabethConley is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 7:36 pm
  #1226  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Originally Posted by ElizabethConley
Aww shucks! OK.

Well it's too late in life for me to adopt the latest styles, so I've been praying for Phil, his lawyers, the court and even the prosecution.

I pray Phil is not harmed, and that wisdom and mercy prevail.

Best of luck tomorrow folks.
Me, too. If the One above all can perform a miracle in Tuscon, we can surely depend upon Him with Phil in NM.
FliesWay2Much is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 8:24 pm
  #1227  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,113
Originally Posted by Mimi111
The comments are great so far.
I would like to ask this DA if she thinks it should be a requirement to show ID in order to travel.

Followed up with "only by plane" or "by plane or train or bus" or "by private auto before starting on a trip" if she said yes?
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Jan 19, 2011, 8:37 pm
  #1228  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Ironically, two very stern-looking TSA sentries, one male and one female, decided to "randomly" check IDs at the gate for my flight from LGA to DEN (where I am now). I was the first to board the flight and just scooted past them uneventfully. The irony of having to show ID in the most unnecessary of circumstances on my way to Phil's trial would have been almost too much to bear!

Unfortunately, due to a flight delay and need to reroute, I'll be arriving in ABQ at 11:04, which is pretty late, especially with the 2-hour time change. But I'll be at the courthouse tomorrow morning at 9. No electronic devices are permitted in the courtroom, so there will be no instant reports, unfortunately.

Bruce
bdschobel is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2011, 1:14 am
  #1229  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by FliesWay2Much
Phil, I know you didn't start out to be an American hero, but, that may well turn out to be the case. I'm a guy of faith, so I have no problem declaring that my prayers are with you tomorrow for the wisdom of your attorneys and the judge. There's a lot at stake.
^

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I would like to ask this DA if she thinks it should be a requirement to show ID in order to travel.

Followed up with "only by plane" or "by plane or train or bus" or "by private auto before starting on a trip" if she said yes?
It would be interesting to hear her response. I don't think she did herself any favors by posting on either site but it may very well work to the defense's advantage.

Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Jan 20, 2011 at 3:24 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Mimi111 is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2011, 6:44 am
  #1230  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Austin (TX)
Posts: 308
Originally Posted by Mimi111

It would be interesting to hear her response. I don't think she did herself any favors by posting on either site but it may very well work to the defense's advantage.

There is a remote possibility it was strategic to allow for another Motion to Dismiss, thereby allowing the judge to toss the charges due to the inability to secure a fair trial in the jurisdiction.

Yes, I have known prosecutors to occasionally do what seemed to be openly stupid things to get rid of a hot potato that they could not make their own motion to dismiss on...does not happen often, but it HAS happened.
michelle227 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.