|
Originally Posted by globalste
(Post 14549362)
afaik, the police have no right to confiscate your camera without a warrant
|
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 14550021)
Yes they do, although they are supposed to have probable cause :rolleyes: . Private security guards, TSOs, BDOs, airline staff, janitors and other self-appointed vigilantes can not confiscate nor demand deletion of photos.
If the can and do confiscate can they also inspect the property without warrant? |
Originally Posted by c141heaven
(Post 14547391)
Why is it nearly impossible to locate this card (as a PDF or whatever) on the internet? You'd think TSA would have them right there on their site for one an all.
TSA Complaint Form |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 14550112)
Can you explain the justification for why a LEO can confiscate private property without warrant?
In the eyes of many LEOs and others, photography = terrorism which is all the PC they need. It likely won't stand up in court and your property must be returned in the absence of conviction. None of which matters a damn when the LEO demands your camera in the first instance. Refuse and you'll be arested or at least detained on any one of a number of trumped-up offences. Legal and Constitutional ? Most probably not, but that only gets sorted out long afterwards. FWIW, the UK does have a law specifically authorising confiscation (or at least 'separation' as they call it): Section 43 Terrorism Act 2000 Section 43 is a stop and search power which can be used if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person may be a terrorist. Any police officer can: - Stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist to discover whether they have in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist. - View digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by the person searched to discover whether the images constitute evidence they are involved in terrorism. - Seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist, including any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence. |
Originally Posted by sc flier
(Post 14550253)
To provide a central location for future reference to finding this form, I created a new FT / FlyerGuide wiki page:
TSA Complaint Form Perhaps add the TSA Complaint Line #? 1-866-289-9673 |
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 14550315)
If the officer "believes" a criminal act has been or is about to be committed.
In the eyes of many LEOs and others, photography = terrorism which is all the PC they need. It likely won't stand up in court and your property must be returned in the absence of conviction. None of which matters a damn when the LEO demands your camera in the first instance. Refuse and you'll be arested or at least detained on any one of a number of trumped-up offences. Legal and Constitutional ? Most probably not, but that only gets sorted out long afterwards. FWIW, the UK does have a law specifically authorising confiscation (or at least 'separation' as they call it): So it seems the best course of action would be to force the arrest and hold the officers feet to the fire. That should open up all kinds of doors to investigate civil rights violations. |
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
(Post 14550112)
Can you explain the justification for why a LEO can confiscate private property without warrant? What law is in play at this point?
If the can and do confiscate can they also inspect the property without warrant? FB |
Can we tell -- or perhaps guess -- if any of that happened in this case? Was a warrant obtained? Were the pictures viewed?
Bruce |
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 14550468)
^
Perhaps add the TSA Complaint Line #? 1-866-289-9673 |
First, welcome to FlyerTalk! :)^
Originally Posted by TedL
(Post 14547575)
I don't know how long they'd been there before I arrived... but in the next row of chairs over, two middle-age guys with binoculars and a scanner on the windowsill were looking out the window and checking out the planes as they came in. Might have had a small camera or two... can't remember. I didn't see anything suspicious. Thought to myself, "Oh, the airplane equivalent of railfans."
About about five or ten minutes after I sat down, what appeared to be a non-sworn security officer (middle-aged female) came over and began questioning them... apparently about what they were doing. There was some discussion about "you can't do that," if what I recall hearing snippets of is still correct in my mind. Over the course of 20 minutes to half an hour, the gentlemen were "required" to leave their seats, gather their stuff (baggage, too) and follow the lady over to where eventually four or so other security officer types, and what appeared to be an airline person had gathered. They were asked to submit the scanner for inspection, I think there was an iPod that got similar treatment. |
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 14547824)
Greg0ire, there was trouble, and there continues to be trouble. I don't care if ND Sol was "looking for trouble" or not. The trouble existed before he arrived.
Many people won't face this fact. Some just don't know. Many people don't believe that airport security guards in the United States have the power to cause someone to be detained, questioned, and have his property destroyed (images deleted, film confiscated, etc.) and liberty restricted, simply because that person was going about his lawful business and annoyed those security guards in the process. ND Sol has demonstrated that this is, in fact, the case. We have a serious problem, and no one who is aware of what happened to ND Sol can reasonably claim that this problem is simply theoretical. He did nothing wrong, and regardless of whether the outcome was to be expected or not, he was punished by agents of our government as a direct result of his Constitutionally-protected activity. People should be outraged that their government operates in such a manner. Now, instead of doing something about this trouble, some people here accuse the victim of causing trouble. That's pretty sad.
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 14548069)
If I had a feeling that this incident would have happened, I wouldn’t have photographed. Unfortunately, it would have had that “chilling effect.” :(
Why would I want for this to occur? Do you think I was seeking some perverse pleasure in thinking I was going to be arrested and then having my camera confiscated? I don’t wish that to happen to anyone who is doing nothing wrong. I don't think you wanted this to occur, but I do think you are intelligent to know that some of your actions were going to lead to you down the wrong path. Ultimately, I think that path went way further than you ever could have (or any rational person should have) imagined. Just my two cents from reading your story and not actually being there. |
Originally Posted by bdschobel
(Post 14550569)
Can we tell -- or perhaps guess -- if any of that happened in this case? Was a warrant obtained? Were the pictures viewed?
Bruce |
Folks,
A number of posts referring to a recent controversial Arizona ruling were deleted for irrelevance to the specific incident under discussion. Feel free to start a thread about it in OMNI/PR if you're so inclined. --------- essxjay TS/S moderator |
Originally Posted by bocastephen
(Post 14527325)
First of all, thank you for sacrificing your liberty and property on behalf of freedom - you're more of a freedom fighter than anyone who works or dreams of working for the TSA, and probably most of the government and military. I salute you.
Seriously? |
Originally Posted by Jcd2147
(Post 14551938)
Seriously?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:39 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.