We have meandered here and meandered there and it's all sort of getting away from the original issue. So, I 'll stick to the airport example that opened this or before long we'll be debating far away.

I suggested that the OP did not behave in a responsible way as to me he set out to precipitate and provoke a particular reaction, that's my opinion. If yours is different OK. Having 'the right to do it?' Maybe. If you have 'the right to do it', is it automatically the case it must always 'be right to do it?' Suggest not.

Delete photographs. Well that's not on, if they are content no actual criminality is afoot. That's sort of like 'criminal damage'.

Not required to carry ID here. Would I produce it if I had it? If stopped in a vehicle I would provide driving licence (otherwise they would issue me a form to produce it later). They don't usually need anything else in that category as it's photographic and checkable.

As for the other stuff, I would not expect to be asked for that and don't carry it anyway. If I am stopped in relation to being suspected of something then I have to give a name and address (but that's here). They can check that too, fairly easily.

In short, co-operate? yes, but if I think I've done my bit to alleviate their suspicion and they are still questioning me to no end, I might be a little contentious about it, as you would. That's fishing, agreed.

Don't mistake me for the total submissive type but I'm just not at the other end of the spectrum either

Anyway, I'm having a 'Time out'. My original opinion of the OP and his precipitation of the encounter stands. I've given responses stating I don't condone TSA judgement and that being detained by HPD for 90mins seems a long time and I don't agree with the bag being taken. The caveat to it is that none of us were there and only one POV of events is reported. That's it.

'This call sign out!'

There you go making up things, again and again -- the above conclusions in both of your above paragraphs rest upon imagination and imagination alone.

In other words you get it but you don't think it should apply to the OP?

That is absurd; do you have any basis in fact for this statement?

Wow-- 32.

I live in Chicago.

Maybe we should both move to where bdschobel lives. Sounds pretty quiet there.

It sounds like most of the country.

It is. Princeton, NJ.

Bruce

Just wanted to add one thing to a great response: An individual's silence in response to police questioning can never be used as part of the equation to form probable cause.

But for some reason the SCOTUS has held that in order to exercise your right to remain silent you must speak.

And the Montgomery County, Maryland police think you're suspicious if you want to buy panoramic camera equipment:

Link

'Tis all part of Operation Sentry...

Link

Too bad we can't elect the police chief out of office.

Eh. I'd rather have hundreds of murders 5 miles from my house than a bunch of bored cops running DUI roadblocks and salivating over any possible moving violation.

From that website:

So, if you are a tourist, an architect or a hobby photographer, you are automatically suspicious.

And now for the solution from that page:

Any business that would require an ID from me to purchase a legal product that has no age restrictions (like tobacco or alcohol or etc.) is a business that will never, ever see my money.

Good grief.

Papier, bitte!

Thanks! I just sent that link to a couple of photographer/firefighter friends of mine, who are also voting residents of MoCo. They both agreed that they are going to write to the Council (as useless as that will be) and the Penn Camera store that they purchase from to open dialog about this issue.

I just love the demand for requiring ID of all customers in the various aspects of that "operation".

Words fail me.