This whole report disgusts me from the selective reporting by the media, to the LEO and TSA behaviour.

There is nothing inherently illegal about videotaping a security line at an airport. As noted elsewhere, TSA has admitted there are no federal regs that apply and I'm not aware of any Colorado state laws that would apply. In general public property (which includes the airport) is fair game for video with the exception of national security areas (not applicable here).

According to the report the individuals were "arrested on suspicion of interfering with a transportation facility." That's a pretty broad charge but still requires proof that they were somehow disrupting the line. So if the line was moving and they were simply filming the area I would think the LEOs and TSA overstepped their authority.
Not having identification is not a crime either.

Note they were not charged with trying to improperly access the secure area (and note that it is not illegal to attempt to access the area without ID, though you may or may not be successful depending on the whims of the TSA).

Sure - it looks like they were trying to set up the TSA and LEOs. So what? If they were smarter they wouldn't take the bait. Now they may face a nice Section 1983 lawsuit if they can't come up with a valid reason for the arrest (and I don't see one from the media reports though clearly we are missing some info).

I'd suggest that some of you read about Maxwell Vs. City of New York (1992) and the Neighborhood Safety Zone checkpoints that the District of Columbia ran back in 2008. The tactics in Maxwell were found to be constitutional, an injunction was issued against the tactics in DC's NSZ checkpoints only on the basis that they would likely be held unconstitutional not that they were. That ruling was only after a circuit court agreed with the practice and didn't see a problem with it. Regardless, trained/educated legal minds both initially thought that checkpoints in both cases were constitutional and had no qualms implementing them.

Here's where I'm going with this. If you don't think that somebody at DOJ or DHS is crafting legislation restricting access to airport terminals, you're naive. I don't support or agree with that kind of legislation. The argument will be that "out of an abundance of caution" or in the "name of safety" airport terminals will be restricted to persons having legitimate business and the wording will be crafted that reflects that. The average citizen will buy into it and not care about any perceived rights being taken away because the average citizen doesn't see any reason to go to the airport unless they have legitimate business there. Furthermore, the average citizen isn't going to view somebody being trespassed off of airport terminal property for hanging around or loitering as an earth shattering violation of their rights.

Unfortunately the Government doesn't like to be openly challenged and continually poking the bear like the folks in Denver leads to consequences.

Again, I don't support any legislation restricting access to airport terminals but I'm not naive enough to think that it won't happen or that it isn't already floating around in the legal departments of DOJ, DHS, or TSA.

The Dulles airport access road has a toll-road that runs along side. The access road (non-toll) has a restriction that says it's only for legitimate airport use, primarily to try and keep folks from driving into the airport grounds, turning around, and avoiding the tolls (and the car pool restrictions on I-66 inside the beltway).

Some rather crafty folks started driving to the airport, buying a cup of coffee at the airport gas station, then turned around and headed down the access road bypassing tolls and the carpool restrictions.

The cops tried to issue tickets against these folks. The cases were promptly thrown out of court because buying merchandise (a cup of coffee) at an airport concessionare was held to be "legitimate airport use" by the courts.

I would submit that DHS and TSA better craft carefully lest they get sued the first time that law is enforced. Especially if the facility is a publicly-owned facility that was financed with taxpayer dollars.

yes, but we all know that the DHS and particularly the TSA believe they are above all that 'law' nonsense...

^

And I would agree that that would be a legitimate airport use, no question.

I'm still curious as to why I've never seen a homeless person or homeless people hanging out at airports, though? Personally I think they'd be a great public place to hang out at if I were homeless. How often can you hang out at a library?

You've obviously never been to ATL.

Because you have to walk probably 10 miles to the airport. And if you get thrown out you have to walk 10 miles back to the library.

Actually there's probably some truth to that. We never had a "homeless problem"*, but we were a considerable distance (7-10 miles) from where a good chunk of the homeless population existed.

You said:
I replied
And then:
I'll yield to your superior knowledge of US law, but I stand by my calling you out on your message. Your reply post limited it to US citizens in the USA, which may be true (I don't know). Your original post was
which is demonstrably false (counterexamples including aliens in many US states, everyone in Germany).

America is not the world.

Germany still has not learned that "Where are your papers?" makes for bad PR?

This thread was relevant to American law, as was my reply, but yes, other countries are not bound by the US Supreme Court. That said, despite spending ~2 months per year abroad, the only time I've ever been asked for my ID by a government official in a foreign country, besides for transportation/immigrations/etc., was when a police officer told me I couldn't drink vodka on the streets of St. Petersburg (which was a surprise to me... I thought it would be viewed the same as a water bottle in Russia... who knew??). I do know that being "the wrong color" can increase your odds in many countries, though.

--Jon

And a couple overseas. I've seen homeless at a couple of small (general aviation) airports.

Most US airports are not in the city nor do they have public transportation readily available. That makes it much, much harder to be attractive to the homeless.

I ONLY carry ID when driving as I no longer fly inside the U.S.
I was wondering what happens if a LEO legitimately wants to see ID
(which I don't carry) BUT I tell them I can provide the DL# if you want to pull up the info and photo on the computer.
My logic says that should work but many have found that their rules depend on how they feel at any given moment.
Thoughts about this....anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
You'd be fine with that. Others will tell you that you don't have to provide an ID card nor are you required to carry one, and they're right. However, in the jurisdictions that have a requirement that you identify yourself to an officer, they will do exactly what you described. They'll either run you on the in car MDT or ask their dispatcher to do it for them.

Honestly, as a LEO, I am surprised when someone actually has their ID on them. Normally, I ask for ID, they say they don't have it, I ask for their name and DOB. One quick NCIC check later and they are either on their way or in handcuffs.