Bolding mine: The problem is two fold

From the TSA side:

• Some TSA folks "didn't get the memo"
• Some TSA folks got the memo but didn't read it
• Some TSA folks go the memo, read it and chose to disregard it

From the pax side:
Some pax need to take a civics lesson

Do you suppose it's normal for airport security guards and police to harass and attempt to intimidate people who are going about their lawful business? If not, then it seems you would think these people were wasting their time. If so, then it seems you would thank them for bringing the situation to others' attention.

If such lawful activity leads to confrontation, then I think we should have the confrontation under controlled circumstances and work toward correcting staff's inappropriate behavior so that such confrontation doesn't recur.

I don't believe there's any law barring the filming or recording of TSA monitors, though TSA staff frequently <i>ask</i> people to refrain from doing so. This is likely a result of their failure to effectively conceal the monitors, which are used to search the content of passengers' belongings, in stark violation of those people's privacy.

If I've got the numbers right, at least 2 of the 3 people trying to enter the sterile area had neither ID nor boarding pass. What was their lawful business?

Anything they were doing that was not unlawful was their lawful business. Whether or not people choose to carry documentation of their identities has no bearing on the lawfulness of their activities. In the United States, we're not required to carry such paperwork. We're not even required to have it.

Accompanying the others to the gate. We all know that's not allowed, some people might not.

Option B. The media got it wrong and ta-da ! "it didn't happen like that".

I don't find it a normal activity for people to want to film airport security checkpoints. I don't believe that asking people why they're filming airport security checkpoints what they're up to or questioning them about their activities to be harassment or intimidation either. I'd expect the cops to leave the folks alone as long as they were polite, unobtrusive, and minded their own business. But simply asking them about what they're doing or talking to them briefly to establish what they're doing is not harassment or intimidation. I don't think that I'm in the minority here, I think that most people would find it a little unusual for people to stand around and film an airport checkpoint.

I don't know that it could be considered lawful business to stand around in an airport all day and film a checkpoint either. At some point I believe that they'd have the authority to ask you to leave. Think about it, if you could legitimately hang around an airport all day long and not be harassed or asked to leave, why don't you see more homeless people using them like they use libraries, parks, or other public areas? If I were homeless, I'd think that an airport terminal would be a mighty fine place to hang out in!

Similarly, if a stranger were walking down my street, somebody that I'd never seen before, taking pictures of houses, or just appearing to wander about aimlessly, I'd potentially call the police to check them out.

My thoughts exactly. I thought Colorodans were more freedom loving than that. This smacks of totalitarian government.

So anything outside YOUR normal is reasonable suspicion? I want to see a judge's face when you tell him that.

No, it's just a consensual encounter, right? No civilian on the receiving end of a snarling question by an armed man should feel at all intimidated, and should feel free to ignore you, as is his right, unless detained. Correct?

I don't believe that most judges would consider standing around an airport terminal all day to be normal either.



Of course it would be a consensual encounter, but your attitude that the airport cop or security guard would be automatically snarling in your face suggests that you would approach the encounter expecting a confrontation immediately. I would expect the officer to say hi, can I ask what you're doing, and as long as you were minding your own business, and not being obnoxious, to leave you alone. Refusing to talk to them or copping a 'tude is not the appropriate way to go about the encounter. Be flat out honest with them that you're filming the checkpoints as an interested citizen on the lookout for TSA abuses or something. My belief/hope would be that as long as you were honest and open with them, they'd leave you alone and allow you your space.

I didnt mind being asked by the police what I was doing. The disconcerting part is the LEO stating that he was going to hand a report over to the FBI. When I pressed the issue of why I was being questioned, the LEO said it was against the law to observe the checkpoints (though he couldnt quote any applicable laws I was apparently violating). I was also told I had to leave the airport since I admitted that I neither was flying out that day or meeting anyone. Apparently my "suspicious" behavior was too much for the TSA (they were the ones that called the LEO as a small crowd of them and who I assume was the FSD (or a self-important looking guy in a suit) gathered around. I think the TSA was disappointed it turned out to be a non-event.

You may be the rare officer who respectfully says, "Hi, how are you doing? May I ask what you're doing", in which case you'll probably get a reasonable explanation. However, in my experience and that of many others, the officer attempts to establish his authority (and many have been trained in this manner) with a "What do you think you're doing?" delivered in command voice.

As you are initiating a consensual encounter, you must be prepared to be ignored. It is the person's right. You may feel entitled to explanation or respect, but it's not required. You then need reasonable suspicion to detain the person to further question him, and failure to submit to you in a consensual encounter is not reasonable suspicion. I know you don't like it, I know it makes the job harder and that some officers will then gin up some hokey "reasonable suspicion" to press the matter. That's why civilians increasingly don't trust cops -- cops can't seem to follow the law, and believe that "Contempt of cop" is an arrestable offense.

Fair enough. However, as I said earlier, I don't think that hanging around an airport all day long without legitimate lawful business would be allowed. At some point they would have an authority to ask you to leave, and at that time, failure to leave would constitute trespassing.

Why not? I love photography, architecture, transportation and plane spotting. Most airports are public spaces - with landside areas open to everyone. Do you suggest airports and train stations only be open to those with a ticket to fly - rather than a public gateway for all to meet, greet and enjoy?

I took an extra couple hours to check out a new terminal in Madrid only for the sake of seeing the architecture and infrastructure. I rode the train over (from the old terminal) with no other reason that to wander around and check it out.

On a road trip through Iowa I stopped in Sioux City just to see the airport and memorial. In SFO I took time to take pictures of the immense new international terminal.

If that's my hobby and what I enjoy doing "with too much time on my hands" why should anyone prevent me from seeing cool things man has constructed?

Not saying you can't whatsoever. But if an airport officer asked you what you were up to or contacted you while you were doing that, all I'm saying is be polite and explain what you're doing.