Mocek now suing for civil rights violations
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 31,067
May be worth your time to read the original thread here:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...g-show-id.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...g-show-id.html
I have over it's life read a good 2/3d's of that thread. Did I miss something specific?
#47
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
It may be a surprise to some here but merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.
The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.
The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,010
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
From the content of this letter http://www.scribd.com/doc/56475027/P...of-Albuquerque it doesn't seem like TSA is the target of any action.
#50
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
That's in the context of committing the crime that the law makes illegal. If I see somebody take an action that I think is illegal and I notify the police of that, I don't believe that I have any liability for that notification as long as it was taken in good faith (meaning that I believed that the action in question was illegal). The police have an obligation to know the law before arresting somebody for violating it, but I don't believe that a private citizen (which is the role that the TSO had in that case) has an obligation to know it before making a report to an LEO.
#51
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
When airport security guard Jonathon Breedon, who examined my boarding pass before calling the police, addressed his supervisor, Gerald Romero, he expressed two concerns, saying, "First of all, he's refusing to show ID. Second, he's videotaping and taking pictures of the process."
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,294
When airport security guard Jonathon Breedon, who examined my boarding pass before calling the police, addressed his supervisor, Gerald Romero, he expressed two concerns, saying, "First of all, he's refusing to show ID. Second, he's videotaping and taking pictures of the process." This can be seen at 20 seconds into the video of my arrest.
Thanks, everyone, for the encouraging words.
Thanks, everyone, for the encouraging words.
#53
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,410
I wonder when the TSA will start using 3G and Wi-Fi jammers at the checkpoints so people can't just upload their images and video as they're taken, rather than let the TSA have the local goon squad erase them "by accident."
#54
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DC area and San Francisco
Programs: SWA A-List, OnePass, AA, U-MP, more
Posts: 170
#55
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 555
~~ Irish
#56
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 555
~~ Irish
#57
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: SSSSS
Posts: 867
#58
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Maybe someone with a much more precise recollection of the events could correct me but before the trial I seem to remember there being a continuance granted to the prosecution in light of "new video evidence" being offered by the defense.
At the time I thought that was odd as I assumed that the defense would have given over or the police would have confiscated any and all video evidence at the the time of the incident.
That led me to wonder at the time if what had happened was that the cops had in fact erased Phil's video on the night in question, the prosecution made it's case based on the testimony of the cops [and lack of video], and then between then and the eve of the trial Phil was able to send his storage media to a professional data recovery service who were able to recover the original video.
It may be a surprise to some here but merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.
The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.
Could this also be why the prosecution did not call several of the witnesses they has previously said they would - because in light of the new video there was no way to spin their testimony as anything other than lies?
If this is the case then it seems to this non-lawyer that the cop who lied and any others who helped him to erase the video could be in serious trouble, perhaps even federal trouble, and might face real prison time; tampering with evidence, abuse under color of authority, civil rights violations, false arrest, etc. not to mention any possible civil penalties.
If this is even close to what happened then I am even more surprised that the prosecutor didn't immediately dismiss all charges.
At the time I thought that was odd as I assumed that the defense would have given over or the police would have confiscated any and all video evidence at the the time of the incident.
That led me to wonder at the time if what had happened was that the cops had in fact erased Phil's video on the night in question, the prosecution made it's case based on the testimony of the cops [and lack of video], and then between then and the eve of the trial Phil was able to send his storage media to a professional data recovery service who were able to recover the original video.
It may be a surprise to some here but merely "deleting" digital storage media doesn't actually erase the data until the media has been overwritten by new data - and sometimes even more than once.
The defense then submitted the recovered video and the prosecution was sent scrambling to redesign their case to try and fit the new video evidence.
Could this also be why the prosecution did not call several of the witnesses they has previously said they would - because in light of the new video there was no way to spin their testimony as anything other than lies?
If this is the case then it seems to this non-lawyer that the cop who lied and any others who helped him to erase the video could be in serious trouble, perhaps even federal trouble, and might face real prison time; tampering with evidence, abuse under color of authority, civil rights violations, false arrest, etc. not to mention any possible civil penalties.
If this is even close to what happened then I am even more surprised that the prosecutor didn't immediately dismiss all charges.
(the letter to the City of Alberquerque is a good Cliffs Notes )
good luck with the case...
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,728
I'll bet the TSA will try it. Just because they think they're above the law anyway.