Interrogated and Detained at IAH for Photographing
#91
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Plat Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 22,652
Wow, what a report. Thanks for posting! I'm sad to see what's become of this country. I guess Innocent until proven guilty no longer comes into play? It sounds like the TSA motto, Guilty until proven innocent, or whenever we choose.
^ for standing your ground! I hope you do get the media involved!!
^ for standing your ground! I hope you do get the media involved!!
#92
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
Houston, I think we have a F@#$I#$ problem!
I read another thread about a gentleman being arrested at IAH for apparently carrying literature that likely clashed with a CBP's personal religious beliefs. I also just got off the phone with my better half who tells me that she just spoke with a friend who knows the owner of one of the largest Halal meat shops in Houston. Apparently, a couple of days ago, one of his butchers, returning from Pakistan was thrown in jail for arguing with some CBP pig who was making a huge deal about the set of meat cleavers and other butcher-type paraphernalia that was safely locked up in his checked baggage. Obviously, hearsay at this time as far as this forum is concerned, but I thought I would put this out there to stir the pot as it were, and to point out that there appears to be something not quite right in Houston (beyond the obvious, that is).
#93
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: SW Rapid Rewards, Hilton Honors, Marriott, Avis First
Posts: 4,831
I am only responding to what was post by the OP. As of yet, he has not post any evidence the BDO's lied, or any other evidence to support any of your other claims.
I'll respond to that, and change my opinion and what I say, if and when he post other evidence, such as a police report.
I'll respond to that, and change my opinion and what I say, if and when he post other evidence, such as a police report.
#94
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
I tend to agree with SATTSO that some of the proposals here sound a little harsh.
I'd like to try another tack if SATTSO is willing.
Assuming that the OP gave an accurate account of the events we have the following:
1. TSA screeners approach person on the non-sterile part of the airport while said person is engaged in perfectly legal activity. The screener questions the person about his activity and requests him to present identification.
2. Upon being rebuffed, screeners call LEOs. We don't know exactly what they report but it is sufficient to make the LEOs decide a response is necessary.
3. LEOs detain, question and search the person, seizing his property, despite his having broken no law and in the absence of any reasonable, articulable suspicion that he had or was about to commit a crime.
4. TSA screeners remain in the area and coordinate with the LEOs during the detention, search, questioning and seizure.
SATTSO has argued, quite persuasively, that much of the proposed punishments for this behavior is extreme and disproportional. I would appreciate hearing from SATTSO as to what punishment would be appropriate for both the TSA screeners and the LEOs.
I'd like to try another tack if SATTSO is willing.
Assuming that the OP gave an accurate account of the events we have the following:
1. TSA screeners approach person on the non-sterile part of the airport while said person is engaged in perfectly legal activity. The screener questions the person about his activity and requests him to present identification.
2. Upon being rebuffed, screeners call LEOs. We don't know exactly what they report but it is sufficient to make the LEOs decide a response is necessary.
3. LEOs detain, question and search the person, seizing his property, despite his having broken no law and in the absence of any reasonable, articulable suspicion that he had or was about to commit a crime.
4. TSA screeners remain in the area and coordinate with the LEOs during the detention, search, questioning and seizure.
SATTSO has argued, quite persuasively, that much of the proposed punishments for this behavior is extreme and disproportional. I would appreciate hearing from SATTSO as to what punishment would be appropriate for both the TSA screeners and the LEOs.
But I will address you question, and first note the following. Your points:
2. Upon being rebuffed, screeners call LEOs. We don't know exactly what they report but it is sufficient to make the LEOs decide a response is necessary.
3. LEOs detain, question and search the person, seizing his property, despite his having broken no law and in the absence of any reasonable, articulable suspicion that he had or was about to commit a crime.
What did the BDO's in your story tell the LEOs? Did they present to the LEO's "articulable suspicion" as to why the person should be questioned? And, honestly, what exactly is "articulable suspicion"? Is it one standard that everyone must apply, with no room for subjective interpertation, or is is a fluid concept?
Now to answer you question:
If the BDO's lied, they should be fired, and brought up on charges of giving false statements. And if that is true, I am sure the BDO's are then targets for civil suits, which they deserve, if they lied.
If the LEO's were lied to by the BDO's, did they fulfil their job in "good faith"? This would not be the first time that LEO's have been lied to by someone so that another person is arrested and put through that misery.
If the BDO's did not lie, and the LEOs conducted the interrogation of their own will - I really do not have an answer. You may not like it, but honestly, I do not know what authority LEO's have and do not have to conduct such an "interview" (to put the term mildly). And if the BDO's did not lie, I do not think they should be punished.
However, if the LEOs did violate clear law, they should be charged with whatever crime that is, and dismissed from the force. And of course, be the subject of civil action as well. But no, their children should not be "castrated", as one fool suggest, nor should their families be ostracized, as another person suggest.
Hope that answers your questions.
#95
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Plat Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 22,652
You think that TSA would fire some of their most talented employees?
#96
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
#97
FlyerTalk Evangelist




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, IHG Plat Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 22,652
#98
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
As for them being terminated, I rotflol as well.
#99
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,702
And I guess since you would laugh too, you don't think they should be terminated? Honestly, if they lied, they should be fired. Even if you don't agree.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Aug 24, 2010 at 12:18 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
#100
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Somewhere near BWI
Programs: DL DM, HH Dia, SPG Gold, MR Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,654
There seems to be some confusion about what I have post - I think. I have not yet resonded to what punishment such BDOs and LEO's should receive, if they have indeed violated any laws or codes of ethics. I have ONLY responded that the families of such LEOs should NEVER be punished, as that is not what a democracy is about, to put bluntly.
But I will address you question, and first note the following. Your points:
2. Upon being rebuffed, screeners call LEOs. We don't know exactly what they report but it is sufficient to make the LEOs decide a response is necessary.
3. LEOs detain, question and search the person, seizing his property, despite his having broken no law and in the absence of any reasonable, articulable suspicion that he had or was about to commit a crime.
What did the BDO's in your story tell the LEOs? Did they present to the LEO's "articulable suspicion" as to why the person should be questioned? And, honestly, what exactly is "articulable suspicion"? Is it one standard that everyone must apply, with no room for subjective interpertation, or is is a fluid concept?
Now to answer you question:
If the BDO's lied, they should be fired, and brought up on charges of giving false statements. And if that is true, I am sure the BDO's are then targets for civil suits, which they deserve, if they lied.
If the LEO's were lied to by the BDO's, did they fulfil their job in "good faith"? This would not be the first time that LEO's have been lied to by someone so that another person is arrested and put through that misery.
If the BDO's did not lie, and the LEOs conducted the interrogation of their own will - I really do not have an answer. You may not like it, but honestly, I do not know what authority LEO's have and do not have to conduct such an "interview" (to put the term mildly). And if the BDO's did not lie, I do not think they should be punished.
However, if the LEOs did violate clear law, they should be charged with whatever crime that is, and dismissed from the force. And of course, be the subject of civil action as well. But no, their children should not be "castrated", as one fool suggest, nor should their families be ostracized, as another person suggest.
Hope that answers your questions.
But I will address you question, and first note the following. Your points:
2. Upon being rebuffed, screeners call LEOs. We don't know exactly what they report but it is sufficient to make the LEOs decide a response is necessary.
3. LEOs detain, question and search the person, seizing his property, despite his having broken no law and in the absence of any reasonable, articulable suspicion that he had or was about to commit a crime.
What did the BDO's in your story tell the LEOs? Did they present to the LEO's "articulable suspicion" as to why the person should be questioned? And, honestly, what exactly is "articulable suspicion"? Is it one standard that everyone must apply, with no room for subjective interpertation, or is is a fluid concept?
Now to answer you question:
If the BDO's lied, they should be fired, and brought up on charges of giving false statements. And if that is true, I am sure the BDO's are then targets for civil suits, which they deserve, if they lied.
If the LEO's were lied to by the BDO's, did they fulfil their job in "good faith"? This would not be the first time that LEO's have been lied to by someone so that another person is arrested and put through that misery.
If the BDO's did not lie, and the LEOs conducted the interrogation of their own will - I really do not have an answer. You may not like it, but honestly, I do not know what authority LEO's have and do not have to conduct such an "interview" (to put the term mildly). And if the BDO's did not lie, I do not think they should be punished.
However, if the LEOs did violate clear law, they should be charged with whatever crime that is, and dismissed from the force. And of course, be the subject of civil action as well. But no, their children should not be "castrated", as one fool suggest, nor should their families be ostracized, as another person suggest.
Hope that answers your questions.
IMO, the TSA personnel overstepped their authority and started an illegal investigation leading to further violations by the HPD. That they retained their involvement after the HPD got involved further implicates the TSA in the entirety of the event. I would be talking to a lawyer to determine what my legal recourse would be under Bivens against ALL parties involved in the detention.
#101




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Italy
Programs: ITA Executive Per Sempre (RIP); LH SEN; BA Silver
Posts: 1,955
Hi there,
as a frequent non-citizen visitor, this is the kind of things that give me nightmare about visiting the US.
Thanks for sharing.
FYI and future reference, examination of the memory card of the photo device by an expert could have told you this, provided you didn't browse through the memory card yourself after getting it back.
I would have gladly volunteered my services, but I live a bit too far ;-)
as a frequent non-citizen visitor, this is the kind of things that give me nightmare about visiting the US.
Thanks for sharing.
I would have gladly volunteered my services, but I live a bit too far ;-)
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Aug 24, 2010 at 12:18 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts
#102
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3
This is the thing, it is not unlawful to take pictures inside an airport. The TSA has even stated on their website that they do not prohibit photography at checkpoints. Per website: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtrav..._pictures.shtm
I am sorry for your experience!
I am sorry for your experience!
#103
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Programs: QF Platinum (OWE)
Posts: 380
As another frequent visitor the the United States, a big
to this overbearing and bullying abuse of power.
The chilling effect the LEO's conduct has on constitutionally protected activity should be clear.
Also; How is it possible that you can be not free to go, but not under arrest? What law would permit that? (By local LEO; I understand that many federal agencies have essentially discretionary powers of detention)
The chilling effect the LEO's conduct has on constitutionally protected activity should be clear.
Also; How is it possible that you can be not free to go, but not under arrest? What law would permit that? (By local LEO; I understand that many federal agencies have essentially discretionary powers of detention)
#104
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend




Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 72,322
#105




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NYS
Programs: Days of Our Lives, General Hospital
Posts: 1,543
In the late 70's I entered East Berlin through Check-point Charlie. At the time I was a camera buff and had lots of camera equipment with me (two camera bodies, zoom lenses, telephoto lenses, etc.). When I approached the American side of the check-point, I told them I had all this equipment and was fearful I would run into trouble on the other side of the wall. The US military agent said that I should not take pictures of the wall, as my only restriction. When I approached the East Berlin guard, he asked me to open my bag, he looked in and just waved me on (he didn't even pause for a second
). I took photographs all over EB. At one point using my 400mm (about 18" long) telephone lens I was photographing a harbor and looked up and noticed that I was in front of a police station and a uniformed officer was looking down at me, I just continued to take photographs and wandered along.
PS: That same summer I was hassled in Amsterdam by the hippies in Dam square when I photographed the area and in La Defense shopping center when I tried photographing the interior.
). I took photographs all over EB. At one point using my 400mm (about 18" long) telephone lens I was photographing a harbor and looked up and noticed that I was in front of a police station and a uniformed officer was looking down at me, I just continued to take photographs and wandered along.PS: That same summer I was hassled in Amsterdam by the hippies in Dam square when I photographed the area and in La Defense shopping center when I tried photographing the interior.
My local airport, a small one, encourages non-flying visitors. There is no shopping and there's only one restaurant (but it's decent). What it has is conference rooms in a convenient, central location for people who are driving in from anywhere in the region. There is no charge to use the conference rooms and the management validates parking.
Last edited by Kiwi Flyer; Aug 24, 2010 at 12:19 pm Reason: merge consecutive posts

