DEN is in the news again
 

This was on the local NBC station today. It would be interesting to find out what they were actually videotaping and for what purpose. I can't believe DEN is a bastion of AQ cells though we did have that crazy last year that bought hair supplies and drove all the way out to NYC to do something nefarious.

http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...xt|FRONTPAGE|t

On a side note, on NOD I was briefly questioned by the local police when I went out to DEN to observe how the NOS were being utilized. I wasnt detained (but I had an ID and I wasnt videotaping) and the police said they were going to supposedly pass my information to the FBI. I havent flown since so I have no idea if I made the domestic extremist list.

'the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!'

Either something doesn't add up here, or I need some sleep. :confused:

Or both. :p

I would say though there are pieces missing to this story.

I'll bet on the TSA clerks calling it in because they didn't want to end up on Youtube.

The article doesn't even make sense (unless it is updated after I viewed it).

As far as what happened to you at DEN, I find it disturbing the local police found it necessary to collect your information to pass onto the FBI, unless it was said as a 'threat' to scare you.

Did they ever say why they intended to pass your info to the FBI? I presume they found nothing wrong with what you were doing and there wasn't more to it (i.e. police asking you to leave).

<shakes head>

As this is my home airport, I am disappointed to hear that if I take my DSLR to watch the checkpoint, I may be detained by the DPD :rolleyes:

I'm interested to hear the rest of the story..

No, obviously not, TSA does not want see video onto youtube. It's too extremely dangerous out there.

Just a guess, but I'm thinking that the three people with no IDs and no boarding passes were videotaping the fourth (who had ID and a boarding pass?) in the hopes of landing their 15 minutes of youtube fame catching a TSO giving their friend an aggressive pat down. The three others probably weren't carrying ID or a boarding pass so they could have their own Phil Mocek moment.


Some people would appear to have waaaayyyy too much time on their hands.

And in what way is videotaping, having too much time on their hands or carrying no ID illegal? Your opinion on what people should be doing with their time is in no way relevant.

I never said not carrying ID was illegal. What I'm guessing is that these four were deliberately hoping for a confrontation with either TSA or airport police. It's my opinion that deliberately traveling to the airport with the hope of creating a confrontation or becoming involved in a confrontation is silly. Furthermore, when you deliberately look for a confrontation, guess what you're more likely to get, a confrontation.

I don't consider this overused statement a bad thing, although it's usually inferred as such and made to belittle someone who's engaged in an activity the other doesn't approve of.

If someone's hobby is bringing to light the immature and shoddy behavior or the TSA and its practices, and someone has the time (on their hands) and resources to do it - then that's a very good thing for that person and anyone interested in it.

The TSA will never be mistaken from a crack team of anti-terror agents. Who would present more of a threat? Someone openly video taping and snapping pictures or a person covertly doing surveillance with hidden cameras? Someone truly looking to gather usable intel would be discreet and do little to draw attention to their actions.

I can only imagine if the DHS/TSA was assigned to search out OBL. They would have marched their "honor guard" into Abbottabad in a "show of force." They would then proceed to knock on every door with a picture of OBL asking, "Do you know this guy?" Anyone not speaking English would have the same question repeated in a voice twice as loud. The real OBL would then proceed to walk away as dozens of clerks stood around.

Filming or recording, other than of the TSA monitors, is allowed by TSA and is legal and constitutionally protected behavior in most jurisdictions. A law enforcement officer is sworn to protect citizens and their rights, not look for reasons to harass or intimidate them, or to judge how they should spend their spare time.

It takes two to tango. If TSA and law enforcement operate within their bounds, confrontation is not possible during said recording, without deliberate provocative action by the recordists. Filming is not of itself provocative, and should not be feared unless TSA or law enforcement has something to hide.

The things that sticks out like a sore thumb in the news report is that 3 of the 4 were trying to gain entrance to the sterile area, and that 3 of the 4 had neither IDs nor boarding passes. This means that at least two people trying to enter the sterile area were not qualified to do so. On top of that, someone was there to film the debacle.

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.

It's never a good idea to speak with a law enforcement officer who is trying to build a case against you. Keeping quiet can't hurt you. Speaking can.

For example:

HT: If you hadn't answered his questions, he would have had no reason to tell you to leave. He tricked you. He also lied to you, but police are allowed to do that. Did you happen to record the conversation?

Why not?

It's a public place. And many airports encourage shopping/dining/whatever. Unless there is some notice that it's not a public place, there shouldn't be a problem.

Does buying a refundable ticket for a 10 PM flight make it OK?

The assumption that they're building a case against you automatically just by talking to you borders on paranoia. We're not talking about cops looking to charge somebody with homicide, rape, robbery, or some other serious crime. We're talking about not talking to airport police or security who talk to you about filming a checkpoint in an airport. Refusing to talk to them or engage them in a simple conversation will only make them more suspicious and want to hassle you even more. Even the ACLU's website suggests not arguing Constitutional issues at the site of the stop but taking it up at a later time.

I'm truly sorry that you have had (a) bad run in(s) with cops in the past but the advice you're giving will only cause people more problems in the long run. Furthermore, it's my belief that continued defiance and obnoxious behavior tends to lead to legislators having a knee jerk reaction and criminalizing the previously non criminal behavior. If next week or next month, hordes of citizens descended on their local airports and began filming checkpoints, not talking to cops, and generally being PITAs, guess what would happen the next week, airports would no longer be considered public places and laws would be written allowing cops to kick people out a lot easier. If you don't believe me, check what happened to California gun laws after the Black Panther party started carrying weapons around Oakland in the 60s.

I'm sorry, but you are the fringe element here. The average US citizen doesn't understand or care what you're doing and tends to side with law enforcement.

Before I get flamed, film checkpoints all you want, seriously, I have no problem with that. I just firmly believe that you will get a lot further with airport police or security if you're polite and open instead of closed, cold, hostile, or obnoxious.

If they're such public places, why haven't I seen homeless people hanging out in any airport that I've traveled through? Why are they all clustered in libraries, parks, or elsewhere? Airports encourage shopping and dining while you're there captive in the airport. They certainly for the most part don't advertise in the local media to come enjoy overpriced terminal food and make it a date night.

Sure, buying a refundable ticket would indicate that you have a legitimate reason to be in the airport.

It's their job to do so.

They're looking to charge someone with anything. That's their job.


Who cares what they want?

Straw man. Nobody suggested arguing with them. In fact, I suggest not speaking with them at all.

Cops would go investigate serious crimes? Everyone would realize that it's ridiculous to stop people from filming checkpoints because images of them are already in the public domain?

HawaiiTrvlr got kicked out of the airport because he gave police a reason to do so by voluntarily engaging in conversation. Better to keep quiet.

Okay Phil, I want to know what you would do in this scenario:

You're at home, a guy is parked in a car across the street from your house, taking pictures. Maybe your child, niece, nephew, whomever is in the front yard playing. I would presume you find this suspicious and call the police. Cops show up, attempt to talk to the guy, and he follows your advice and doesn't say a word.

What do you want or expect the cops to do? Would you be 100% happy with them walking across the street, knocking on your door, telling you sorry he won't talk to us, he's in a public place and there's no crime being committed, so we're leaving now. You'd be 100% okay/happy with them driving off and leaving the strange guy sitting across from your house? What would you have them do Phil?

Phil...I didnt record the conversation. I do know he lied to me. I knew enough that I wasn't doing anything wrong and that I hadnt broke any laws. It was pretty easy to figure out he was lying when he couldnt cite any laws (local or federal) that I had supposedly broken after I asked him several times throughout the encounter. I wasnt out for a confrontation. I answered his questions as vaguely as I thought of. I think he just couldnt grasp that I would come all the way out to the airport just to watch (or in my words observe) the checkpoints; this was the Thanksgiving weekend when the TSA rolled out the enhanced patdowns. In hindsight, I could have told him that I was waiting for a friend but the flight was delayed. But if I didnt provide a name or flight it could have further escalated the situation. I made quite a few notes anyways and reported them on here.

Back on topic. The local news apparently said one or more of the individuals tried to go through security without an ID or boarding pass. They left one to videotape the encounter. Maybe they were looking for a confrontation with the TSA. Who knows.

Oddly enough, that's exactly what should happen.

What would you have them do?

I'd be happiest if the cops got the guy to leave. Just because he has a lawful reason to be parked there, doesn't mean he has a legitimate reason to be there. Sorry, but the right to peace and privacy of myself and my neighbors trump that of somebody who doesn't live in the neighborhood and wants to photograph children in their front yards. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people would agree with me.

I wouldn't really be happy until the cops at least were able to get some kind of ID from the guy and cut a field interview card on him.

What would you have done Caradoc?

I'd get out my camera and take pictures of him, including his license plate.

I'm concerned and yet somehow completely unsurprised that you'd advocate abrogating personal rights in favor of "warm fuzzy feelings."

People doing real surveillance don't just sit there in plain view with a camera.