nachtnebel

How do you read the tea leaves wrt the likelihood of TSA rolling back the scanners/sex organ gropes due to congressional action?

Some by convictions are against it (led by Chaffetz) others could be persuaded by popular sentiment. Could this be enough pressure even without formal legislation. That is, funding cuts or threats thereof.

But the lobbyists for the "security industry" that produces these and other devices have spent liberally and many senators and congressman have taken their money, if we are to believe the campaign donation summaries being passed around on FT.

Regarding actual legislative action, I am hopeful, but not too sure about the vote count, and then you have to contend with a likely presidential veto. Thoughts?

pmocek

This is a great discussion. I'm going to stay out of most of it.

In court, Breedon from TSA testified that I wasn't yelling before he saw me using my camera. Neither Dilley's criminal complaint nor the statement Breedon wrote the day of the incident mentions any yelling after arrest. After the time that my video ends, there are about 20 seconds for which no audio is publicly available, but during which the airport security cameras captured me with police at about 0.5 frames per second. 20-ish seconds after my video ends, one of the sections of the police audio recordings which I believe to be from Officer Wiggins' belt tape (which I received as anyone else could via public records request), begins with me within earshot, and runs until well after I was locked up at the airport police office.

Thanks for sharing your reaction. If you don't mind sharing more details, I have a few questions:

As a general rule, I go about my business in a lawful manner without relinquishing any of my rights unless there's good reason to do so. Given what you've seen, when do you suppose I could have acted differently without deviating from that rule? Is there some point at which you think I should have deviated from my adherence to this rule in order to avoid turning the incident into a political protest?

What is a rulebook game? The closest things to rules or rulebooks that came up in court were 1) Breedon's testimony about TSA's rules regarding identification and photography, and 2) a printout of a Web page on the TSA site that describes a policy about photography at airports.

essxjay

One way perhaps but not the way. :chuckle: You are certainly entitled to your opinion, FH. Whether it's realistic ... :shrug:

Shouldn't you be asking the TSA? Little more than 48 hours since Phil's acquittal, who knows what's on the mind of Pistole and his chiefs.

techauthor

In a classroom environment I would agree that only legislatures should make laws. However, real world influences often generate laws that conflict with constitutional guarantees. It is the job of the courts (in the US, where this happened, and elsewhere but not everywhere) to judge the actions of the people before it and the laws that are written.

I would refer you to the history of civil rights legislation in this country for some stellar examples and precedents. There were laws against many interracial activities (attending the same school, sitting on any seat on the bus, voting) and so on. It took people speaking up, often at risk to their own safety and freedom, being willing to be arrested and then asking the courts to rule on the legitimacy of the laws.

This case is important to me on many fronts. I'm a hobbyist photographer, a lawyer and a frequent flyer. I also teach computer security and understand that the ID checking done at TSA checkpoints is security theater. I applaud Phil for his willingness to take a risk and I am very pleased with the results.

That said, perhaps a bit of context might be useful. The court did not say what the TSA can or cannot do. The JURY said that Phil wasn't guilty of disorderly conduct and some other charges that came from that incident. There is NO precedent set here. (Precedents flow down from judges' opinions, not from verdicts). Keep in mind that this was a state court. The judge, even if so inclined, couldn't do anything to change TSA/DHS. State judiciaries have have no authority over a federal agency.

RichardKenner

Remember that battery, assault, and related crimes are different from state-to-state. Not all have the same names or the same required elements.

My question is precisely what happened before you used your camera. What made your interaction with TDC different from that of the many people per day who show up without ID?

This case was not about TSA policies: they were never in dispute. It was about how police treated somebody they were called to "handle" by the TSA. We have a highly-public acquittal of such a person. That will make the police just a bit less likely to treat anybody in a similar fashion. And that, in turn, will make the TSA "threat" of calling an LEO less of a threat. Things change in small ways.

nsx

Well stated. If police reaction is more intelligent in the future, that's a desirable outcome.

By analogy, if I were to drive my car in such a way as never to concede any of my rights to other drivers, I would have multiple accidents per day. In the real world, I have to give way to others now and then and I expect that they will give me a break when I need it.

In my opinion, the situation would not have escalated had you showed an ID after stating clearly that you were doing it purely as a favor to them even though they had no legal right to demand it.

Did you have every right not to cooperate in that way? Absolutely. And I congratulate you on the outcome of your case, which was the only fair result possible.

ElizabethConley

I agree. State and Local authorities have been mindlessly accepting the role of enforcers for TSA malfeasance.

That needs to stop, and I hope that Mr. Mocek's case will get the attention of our nation's Police Chiefs, Sheriffs and DAs.

I'm discouraged because Phil's victory has only appeared in local media. It seems like "main stream media" is pointedly ignoring the news and its implications. I'm looking forward to linking Phil's victory in the comments section of the next lame stream media fête of the TSA.

Disenchanted citizens need to know they're not alone, and that citizens can prevail.

maradydd

FlyingHoustonian, your post smacks of the popular mythology that Rosa Parks was an everyday woman, tired from a long day at work, who spontaneously refused to move to the back of the bus. That's what I was taught at Paul Revere Middle School over on the far west side of Houston, but it actually isn't the whole truth. Rosa Parks had been an activist since 1943, the year she first experienced discrimination on the Montgomery bus system, serving as the volunteer secretary to the president of the Montgomery NAACP. She was already involved in defense efforts for another young woman, Claudette Colvin, who had been forced off a bus in handcuffs for refusing to give up her seat to a white man. Parks' refusal to give up her seat on December 1, 1955 was indeed opportunistic -- she wasn't looking for a fight -- but she was well prepared to give as good as she got if the fight came to her.

Nor did Parks' heroic refusal change Montgomery's policies overnight, and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that Mocek's refusal to provide ID when it is not required by law was intended to change TSA's policies overnight. Rather, the Parks incident sparked a boycott of the Montgomery bus system that lasted over a year, punishing the bus company where it really hurt -- in their pockets. The financial damage was ultimately what tipped the scale for bus desegregation in Montgomery, Alabama.

I absolutely agree that lobbying and meeting with Representatives is a very effective way of bringing about change in today's government. However, many citizens are frustrated and disgusted with the K Street money machine, and prefer not to engage with it, since doing so is a form of tacit approval. In light of this, I suspect many people are interpreting your criticism of Phil as "YOU'RE NOT DOING IT THE WAY I THINK YOU SHOULD, YOU'RE ALL BIG STUPID-HEADS." But it's not just one or the other. Please, by all means, continue to apply pressure on the lobbyist front and to look for the financial means by which to do so. At the same time, however, you can look for ways to encourage people to engage their Congressmen and Senators directly.

Everyone else: you know you can do that, right? I was twenty years old when I met my first Senator -- two friends from high school and I called up Kay Bailey Hutchison's office and made an appointment, as constituents, to encourage her to expand the space program. We spent most of our time speaking with an aide, but we did get to speak with Sen. Hutchison for a few minutes. I don't know if three kids in their late teens made much of an impression, but I do know that if everyone here and all of our co-workers and neighbours were to fill up their elected representatives' schedules with appointments to ask them to rein in the TSA, those representatives are going to start worrying about the next election. If the majority of citizens they meet with are angry about the TSA's excesses, that suggests to them that the "silent majority" is upset as well, and if they don't do something, it could cost them their seat.

In the meantime, however, I applaud Phil Mocek and will continue to do so. Phil didn't manufacture an excuse to fly any more than Rosa Parks manufactured an excuse to be on the bus: she was coming home from work, he was going home from a conference. The bus driver tried to order Rosa Parks to do something unreasonable, and the TSA tried to order Phil to do something unreasonable, and both of them stood up for their rights. (Phil's rights happened to be already recognised by law, whereas Rosa's weren't, which is really the primary distinction here.)

I do hope that Phil's case motivates more people to boycott the airlines -- and to let the airlines know that they will be doing so. In February I'm flying to the US to give a seminar and visit my in-laws, and I will not be flying domestically. British Airways will be getting my flying euros for the international segment of my journey, and I'm taking Amtrak for my domestic travel. It may mean eight hours on a train rather than two in the air, but (barring a VIPR team and my departure check-in) at least I'll travel hassle-free. I plan to write letters to all the airlines that cover the route I would have flown, letting them know that they've missed out on my business and will continue to do so until they stand up to the TSA. I'm going to do this every time I take a train in the US from now on.

You're conflating two concepts of "rights" here. The "right of way" when driving is not legally protected in the sense that one's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is. Some jurisdictions have extended greater legal protection to pedestrians' right-of-way -- in Berkeley, if you hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk, it's your fault even if the pedestrian was crossing against the light -- but in general your responsibility to drive safely takes priority over your right of way. If you hit another car while turning because you had the right of way and the other car came speeding into the intersection, your right of way would be a factor in a subsequent court proceeding, but if you see a car coming and turn into it anyway, having the right of way isn't going to do you much good (though the other driver may indeed be cited for failure to yield).

Not only does Phil have the right not to identify himself on demand, this right is protected by law in many circumstances. Hiibel is an example of a situation where SCOTUS has found that the right not to identify oneself does not apply.

jkhuggins

See, I'm not sure that there are national implications.

From the cheap seats over here, what really happened here?

A citizen of the US exercised his right, under TSA regulations, to request permission to traverse a TSA checkpoint without presenting identity documents. He also exercised his right, under TSA regulations, to record the process at the checkpoint. Because of gross misinterpretations of those events by the TSA employees and local law enforcement, he was improperly arrested.

What's different today? I foresee no changes to TSA national regulations as a result of this case; at best, we might have some local retraining so that the TSOs in ABQ aren't quite so quick to call LEOs when things aren't going according to their playbook. As for the LEOs involvement ... at most, we have one rogue LEO (or a few? I'm hazy on that) who arrested a citizen for "contempt of cop".

I'm sorry ... but I don't see anything here worthy of national news. I wish there was something nationally newsworthy about this.

Global_Hi_Flyer

The only real change I'd expect to see is one banning use of cameras at the checkpoint (ala Immigration & Customs). They would try to justify it by saying that filming gives the bad guys too much information. I can think of one screener (who posts here) who is likely salivating at the thought.

As for the yelling, intimidation, and lack of candor, I'd expect those to remain the same.

RichardKenner

But people do this many times every day at every checkpoint, as admitted by the TSA in this case. So this case can clearly not be viewed as somehow enhancing that right, which was never in question. This is one of the things I'm very confused about with regard to this case. Phil wasn't able to answer these questions before the trial, but I'm hoping he does now.

mikemey

Unfortunately, I think you're right, given the way knee-jerk reaction style of the TSA. They lost, now they'll punish us all for their stupidity.

Global_Hi_Flyer

I think the right words are "ensuring a cover-up". Some state and local police departments have tried the same thing, for the same reason. They'd rather hide the truth.

LessO2

Very well said.


Never seen so many statements I agree and disagree with in the same paragraph.

Agree this was never about the TSA policies (this is why it won't change a damn thing with the TSA, and nobody will directly answer FH's question from a page or two ago).

I don't get how this is a "highly-public acquittal." OJ Simpson in 1995, NYPD Officers in the Amadou Diallo case in Albany, THOSE are "highly-public acquittals." The TSA doesn't care about this case. The only reason there was a TSA suit or two in the courtroom was because of the screener that had to testify.

The TSA will continnue to call the cops to intimidate and/or threaten people. That's not going to change, the TSA is way too arrogant to do that.


Even when the "mainstream media" reports on a story, they get it wrong. Such as Mocek's hometown of Seattle, where a local TV station got it wrong, say the TSA was on trial. It was not, it was Mocek's actions with the police that were the issue.

We already got a good idea of what the media thought of this case when the Washington Times called Mocek a "harmless crank.".

Another thing to consider is another FTer's actions with the "Kip Hawley is an idiot" writing on the bag. The TSA never responded to him, and the media eventually went back to reporting on the things they care about more, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears' crotch pictures.


It's been a couple of pages since FlyingHoustonian posed some important questions about the after-effects of the case. Nobody can directly answer him on those, a sign that even some of the most staunch anti-TSAers know that not a damn thing has changed.

T-the-B

And I completely agree with you on that point.