The 4th Amendment is a Deadly Weapon
Oct 20, 2011 | 5:44 pm
#16
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
Sorry, this had nothing to do with this idiot speaking the Constitution out loud. She refused to move; she stopped the ENTIRE screening process for that particular checkpoint - not just for her, but for everyone.
If she were as really as intelligent as she seems to believe she is, she would have followed the TSA employees inside the checkpoint, received the pat down - and continuted to speak out loud the various Admendments she spouted out.
No, when she stopped in front of the entrance to the AIT and WTMD and started to recite the Fourth Amendment, she stopped the process for everyone. The man who showed up was most likely a TSM - which tells me she was very loud and this was going on for more than a few seconds
From the ATSA
"Sec. 46503. Interference with security screening personnel
``An individual in an area within a commercial service airport in
the United States who, by assaulting a Federal, airport, or air carrier
employee who has security duties within the airport, interferes with the
performance of the duties of the employee or lessens the ability of the
employee to perform those duties, shall be fined under title 18,
imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. If the individual used a
dangerous weapon in committing the assault or interference, the
individual may be imprisoned for any term of years or life
imprisonment.'"
As everything came to a stand still, it can easily be argued that this passenger lessened "the ability of the" employees to perform their duties.
But here is the amazing part: her posting this on the internet - not the brightest idea.
She planed this - who cares if a passenger quotes various Amendments at the checkpoint; no she planned to stop in front of the AIT and WTMD and spout off at the lips, stopping the flow of the checkpoint. Her mistakes are compounding. She is obviously going to be fined, but what do you think will happen to the amount of that fine if TSA regulatory learns of her posting? I doubt there will be criminal charges, but who can say if TSA learns she planned this all along? Perhaps someone should tell her to remove this post untill all is said and done? I doubt she is smart enough to do so...
If she were as really as intelligent as she seems to believe she is, she would have followed the TSA employees inside the checkpoint, received the pat down - and continuted to speak out loud the various Admendments she spouted out.
No, when she stopped in front of the entrance to the AIT and WTMD and started to recite the Fourth Amendment, she stopped the process for everyone. The man who showed up was most likely a TSM - which tells me she was very loud and this was going on for more than a few seconds
From the ATSA
"Sec. 46503. Interference with security screening personnel
``An individual in an area within a commercial service airport in
the United States who, by assaulting a Federal, airport, or air carrier
employee who has security duties within the airport, interferes with the
performance of the duties of the employee or lessens the ability of the
employee to perform those duties, shall be fined under title 18,
imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. If the individual used a
dangerous weapon in committing the assault or interference, the
individual may be imprisoned for any term of years or life
imprisonment.'"
As everything came to a stand still, it can easily be argued that this passenger lessened "the ability of the" employees to perform their duties.
But here is the amazing part: her posting this on the internet - not the brightest idea.
She planed this - who cares if a passenger quotes various Amendments at the checkpoint; no she planned to stop in front of the AIT and WTMD and spout off at the lips, stopping the flow of the checkpoint. Her mistakes are compounding. She is obviously going to be fined, but what do you think will happen to the amount of that fine if TSA regulatory learns of her posting? I doubt there will be criminal charges, but who can say if TSA learns she planned this all along? Perhaps someone should tell her to remove this post untill all is said and done? I doubt she is smart enough to do so...
Can I ask why you cite one part of the law, but ignore another part? Specifically, this:
"or lessens the ability of the employee to perform those duties, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both."
That has nothing to do with assault. Sorry.
"or lessens the ability of the employee to perform those duties, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both."
That has nothing to do with assault. Sorry.
Commas and contingent clauses are tricky things. I know you won't like it, but be assured your interpretation is incorrect.
Oct 20, 2011 | 5:48 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Oh, I wouldn't be so sure of that. It sounds to me that the objection was to her reading from the 4th Amendment (assuming her story is factual and complete -- it may not be), i.e. "Stop reading the 4th Amendment and submit to screening." "I'll submit to screening, but I won't stop reading from the 4th Amendment." "If you don't stop [reading] we'll call a LEO."
That's a 1st Amendment violation.
Intentional violations are almost always given more punishment. However, I'm unconvinced at this point that she violated anything. If she did, it was, arguably, disorderly conduct. It most absolutely was not interfering with the screening (at least on her version of the facts).
That's a 1st Amendment violation.
The question is, fined how much? Knowing she planned what she did, if regulatory found out, do you think they may give her a larger fine?
Oct 20, 2011 | 6:38 pm
#18
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 230
Actually it is so vague that if you stop to remove your shoes, and take longer than some TSA person thinks you should, they could say you are interfering with the screening line. It is ridiculous how they scream at the pax over so many stupid little things.
Oct 20, 2011 | 6:44 pm
#19
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Lesson 1: When planning a protest in which those one is protesting outnumber the protester by several to one, and also one in which those being protested against has the weight and force of government, arrange for video documentation to be created to support the subsequent account.
Lesson 2: Be prepared for things to go against your best laid plans.
Lesson 3: Do not protest in a way that turns casual observers or otherwise disinterested witnesses into non-sympathetic parties.
Lesson 4: Only do this with the full knowledge and support of those that love you the most. Do not surprise them too.
Lesson 5: Be prepared to accept the full cost and punishment that may be meted out for your actions.
Lesson 6: Before doing anything, get competent legal advice and representation. Do what they say.
I do admire the spunk and determination of the protester. I also agree with the premise of what is being protested.
Good idea. Poor execution.
Lesson 2: Be prepared for things to go against your best laid plans.
Lesson 3: Do not protest in a way that turns casual observers or otherwise disinterested witnesses into non-sympathetic parties.
Lesson 4: Only do this with the full knowledge and support of those that love you the most. Do not surprise them too.
Lesson 5: Be prepared to accept the full cost and punishment that may be meted out for your actions.
Lesson 6: Before doing anything, get competent legal advice and representation. Do what they say.
I do admire the spunk and determination of the protester. I also agree with the premise of what is being protested.
Good idea. Poor execution.
Oct 21, 2011 | 12:30 am
#20
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
Well, sorry, but I believe you're reading it wrong (though it would take examination of the legislative history to prove it). "by assaulting a Federal, airport, or air carrier
employee who has security duties within the airport" is a subordinate clause that modifies "a person." Phrased another way, the plain meaning of the statute is: People who commit assault and (1) interfere with the
performance of the duties of the employee or, (2) lessens the ability of the
employee to perform those duties," are liable under the statute. It doesn't make any sense your way, i.e. If you commit assault AND interfere, or, if you lessen the ability of an employee to perform duties, you're liable.
employee who has security duties within the airport" is a subordinate clause that modifies "a person." Phrased another way, the plain meaning of the statute is: People who commit assault and (1) interfere with the
performance of the duties of the employee or, (2) lessens the ability of the
employee to perform those duties," are liable under the statute. It doesn't make any sense your way, i.e. If you commit assault AND interfere, or, if you lessen the ability of an employee to perform duties, you're liable.
, I'd offer the following explanation:The statute applies to one who "interferes with the duties of the employee or lessens the ability of the employee to perform those duties" and does so by assaulting said employee. Hence, if you either lessen the ability of the employee to perform their duties or lessen their ability to do so by means other than assault, then the statute and penalties contained therein do not apply.
I should add that there is a common misconception that assault must involve physical contact, though the intention to commit some kind of physical battery is necessary (so you don't actually have to hit the employee for a prosecutor to invoke the statute).
Oct 21, 2011 | 12:48 am
#21
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
'Interfering with screening' is nowhere defined and (probably intentionally) vague. While I do agree with the sentiment, reciting the 4th Amendment loud enough for everyone in line to hear and exhorting those same people to take photos seems to me to qualify as interfering. I don't think it's disorderly conduct in the spirit of that law, but as everyone should be aware that is a 'catch-all' charge that police will lay simply to enable an arrest.
If, as claimed, she lowered her voice so as not to be disruptive I'd say that's neither interfering nor disorderly. Whoever told her she could not continue to speak and certainly the 'you have no rights' individual are in clear violation of 42 USC 1983 regarding the 1st Amendment. To wit:
And a further example, if one was necessary, that airport cops are not the passengers' friends. They are there to back up the TSA workers. Always.
If, as claimed, she lowered her voice so as not to be disruptive I'd say that's neither interfering nor disorderly. Whoever told her she could not continue to speak and certainly the 'you have no rights' individual are in clear violation of 42 USC 1983 regarding the 1st Amendment. To wit:
And a further example, if one was necessary, that airport cops are not the passengers' friends. They are there to back up the TSA workers. Always.
Ignoring the legitimacy (or shall I say lack thereof) of the TSA's determination that she not be allowed to fly I cannot entirely disagree with the decision to arrest someone who disobeyed a lawful order (which, like it or not, ordering her to vacate the checkpoint, under the circumstances, was). What the police did afterwards (yanking her arms up for the sole purpose of inflicting pain) was criminal (but hard to prove), but the arrest in and of itself was likely proper.
And while your last statement may in fact be correct she was not arrested for disobeying the TSA: she was arrested for disobeying the police. It wasn't about them backing up the TSA, it was about them enforcing their own orders. Right or wrong, it's not quite the same.
Oct 21, 2011 | 12:51 am
#22
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
Sorry, this had nothing to do with this idiot speaking the Constitution out loud. She refused to move; she stopped the ENTIRE screening process for that particular checkpoint - not just for her, but for everyone.
If she were as really as intelligent as she seems to believe she is, she would have followed the TSA employees inside the checkpoint, received the pat down - and continuted to speak out loud the various Admendments she spouted out.
If she were as really as intelligent as she seems to believe she is, she would have followed the TSA employees inside the checkpoint, received the pat down - and continuted to speak out loud the various Admendments she spouted out.
And before you resort to calling her an idiot, perhaps you'd be best served by rereading the article and seeing that she was not being asked to follow them inside the checkpoint, but away from the checkpoint over to the ticket counter. Had they tried to get her to go inside the checkpoint for screening, there wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.
Oct 21, 2011 | 7:05 am
#23
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,972
And while your last statement may in fact be correct she was not arrested for disobeying the TSA: she was arrested for disobeying the police. It wasn't about them backing up the TSA, it was about them enforcing their own orders. Right or wrong, it's not quite the same.
An experienced and smart officer (which you're unlikely to find at an airport) would have determined what the TSA's beef was, assessed it for validity and acted accordingly. The first step in that process is not slapping the cuffs on and yet they do so in almost every case of a non-compliant pax. Hence my generalization, but not too far off the mark I think.
Oct 21, 2011 | 7:08 am
#24
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
While you can't say that a Daily Kos blogger is right-wing , I have to say that it's nice that someone with a "conservative profile" (retired Air Force, doctor) is taking action like this.
As much as I respect pmocek and what he is trying to do, I think that when people hear that he with for the Cannabis Defense Coalition, some people will automatically dismiss the validity of his actions - he is "obviously" a troublemaker.
We need more troublemakers like both of these people. The more truly egregious things that happen, the less likely people are to tolerate the little indignities and violations.
, I have to say that it's nice that someone with a "conservative profile" (retired Air Force, doctor) is taking action like this.As much as I respect pmocek and what he is trying to do, I think that when people hear that he with for the Cannabis Defense Coalition, some people will automatically dismiss the validity of his actions - he is "obviously" a troublemaker.
We need more troublemakers like both of these people. The more truly egregious things that happen, the less likely people are to tolerate the little indignities and violations.
Oct 21, 2011 | 12:44 pm
#25
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,730
TSA has created a nasty catch-22 where the TSA employee "stops the screening process" by engaging with the "targeted" passenger by refusing to continue screening until the passenger stops speaking whatever questions or statement they have, then accusing the passenger of stopping the screening process. Then using that as justification for claiming "interference with screening," and using that as a justification for (supposedly lawfully) ordering the passenger to exit the checkpoint, thus creating a situation where if the passenger continues to contest TSA's unreasonable actions, they get arrested for "disorderly conduct."
TSA can use this process to get any passenger arrested as long as the passenger doesn't cave in, regardless of what the passenger's beef/complaint is. TSA tries to confiscate medical liquids and passenger argues? Accuse them of interference and force them to leave or get arrested. TSA tries to confiscate a non-prohibited item like an electronic device? Do the same thing.
IMO there should be no such thing as nonphysical interference with screening. Any LEO called to one of these scenes should ask the passenger (not the TSA) if they consent to continued screening, and if the passenger says yes, allow him to continue that screening regardless of what they are saying, singing, wearing, or smelling like. If TSA refuses to screen the passenger under these circumstances, then the LEO should back off instead of becoming TSA's enforcer. The threshold for "disorderly conduct" should be actual loud/disruptive activity, not disagreeing with TSA or asking questions.
As an aside, as poorly executed as this well-intentioned protest was, DHS/TSA should be very worried that a retired USAF Lt Col is doing this sort of thing. This isn't a young/inexperienced person, someone with an authority problem, or advocate for fringe causes. It's someone who spent 20+ years holding down a military job and working inside the federal bureaucracy. And I have spoken to a number of retired military types who seem to share many opinions with this woman.
TSA can use this process to get any passenger arrested as long as the passenger doesn't cave in, regardless of what the passenger's beef/complaint is. TSA tries to confiscate medical liquids and passenger argues? Accuse them of interference and force them to leave or get arrested. TSA tries to confiscate a non-prohibited item like an electronic device? Do the same thing.
IMO there should be no such thing as nonphysical interference with screening. Any LEO called to one of these scenes should ask the passenger (not the TSA) if they consent to continued screening, and if the passenger says yes, allow him to continue that screening regardless of what they are saying, singing, wearing, or smelling like. If TSA refuses to screen the passenger under these circumstances, then the LEO should back off instead of becoming TSA's enforcer. The threshold for "disorderly conduct" should be actual loud/disruptive activity, not disagreeing with TSA or asking questions.
As an aside, as poorly executed as this well-intentioned protest was, DHS/TSA should be very worried that a retired USAF Lt Col is doing this sort of thing. This isn't a young/inexperienced person, someone with an authority problem, or advocate for fringe causes. It's someone who spent 20+ years holding down a military job and working inside the federal bureaucracy. And I have spoken to a number of retired military types who seem to share many opinions with this woman.
Oct 21, 2011 | 2:35 pm
#26
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
TSA has created a nasty catch-22 where the TSA employee "stops the screening process" by engaging with the "targeted" passenger by refusing to continue screening until the passenger stops speaking whatever questions or statement they have, then accusing the passenger of stopping the screening process. Then using that as justification for claiming "interference with screening," and using that as a justification for (supposedly lawfully) ordering the passenger to exit the checkpoint, thus creating a situation where if the passenger continues to contest TSA's unreasonable actions, they get arrested for "disorderly conduct."
TSA can use this process to get any passenger arrested as long as the passenger doesn't cave in, regardless of what the passenger's beef/complaint is. TSA tries to confiscate medical liquids and passenger argues? Accuse them of interference and force them to leave or get arrested. TSA tries to confiscate a non-prohibited item like an electronic device? Do the same thing.
IMO there should be no such thing as nonphysical interference with screening. Any LEO called to one of these scenes should ask the passenger (not the TSA) if they consent to continued screening, and if the passenger says yes, allow him to continue that screening regardless of what they are saying, singing, wearing, or smelling like. If TSA refuses to screen the passenger under these circumstances, then the LEO should back off instead of becoming TSA's enforcer. The threshold for "disorderly conduct" should be actual loud/disruptive activity, not disagreeing with TSA or asking questions.
TSA can use this process to get any passenger arrested as long as the passenger doesn't cave in, regardless of what the passenger's beef/complaint is. TSA tries to confiscate medical liquids and passenger argues? Accuse them of interference and force them to leave or get arrested. TSA tries to confiscate a non-prohibited item like an electronic device? Do the same thing.
IMO there should be no such thing as nonphysical interference with screening. Any LEO called to one of these scenes should ask the passenger (not the TSA) if they consent to continued screening, and if the passenger says yes, allow him to continue that screening regardless of what they are saying, singing, wearing, or smelling like. If TSA refuses to screen the passenger under these circumstances, then the LEO should back off instead of becoming TSA's enforcer. The threshold for "disorderly conduct" should be actual loud/disruptive activity, not disagreeing with TSA or asking questions.
Once again, in this case the DC charge came only after the police had begun to escort the author from the checkpoint and she sat down on the floor rather than following. No different than when one is protesting in public (no matter how worthy the cause), is told by law enforcement that they are blocking traffic and to move, but instead sits down in the middle of the street. They will most likely be arrested, but not for their protest, rather for refusing to follow lawful orders to stop holding up traffic. It doesn't matter that the TSA's reasoning for removing her was BS, what matters is that the police told her to leave and she did not.
Oct 21, 2011 | 2:39 pm
#27
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
Anyone else think that the misdemeanor will be dismissed and this whole thing swept under the rug, just like the breast grope at PHX? I think the implications for TSA are the same in this case and they don't want this to end up in court (particularly when we're talking about a planned act of civil disobedience where a trial may be very welcome vs a spur of the moment reaction).
And, speaking of the misdemeanor, I sincerely hope that she wasn't talked into pleading guilty to a misdemeanor, and instead merely acknowledged being charged with one. At the very least, I don't understand why she never insisted on consulting a lawyer on the matter. If the choice was to accept being charged now or wait until Monday that's one thing, but if it was either admit to being guilty of a misdemeanor, case closed until sentencing, or wait until Monday, without even a Miranda Warning, then there is a clear violation of her rights for which she'll hopefully sue in civil court.
And, speaking of the misdemeanor, I sincerely hope that she wasn't talked into pleading guilty to a misdemeanor, and instead merely acknowledged being charged with one. At the very least, I don't understand why she never insisted on consulting a lawyer on the matter. If the choice was to accept being charged now or wait until Monday that's one thing, but if it was either admit to being guilty of a misdemeanor, case closed until sentencing, or wait until Monday, without even a Miranda Warning, then there is a clear violation of her rights for which she'll hopefully sue in civil court.
Oct 21, 2011 | 2:57 pm
#28
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,730
The thing to remember is that once the police arrive, that is the time to start following directives and instructions to avoid arrest because it is your reactions to their orders that can result in such a charge.
Once again, in this case the DC charge came only after the police had begun to escort the author from the checkpoint and she sat down on the floor rather than following.
Once again, in this case the DC charge came only after the police had begun to escort the author from the checkpoint and she sat down on the floor rather than following.
Originally Posted by the article
The old goat of a cop shoves me. "Get the hell out of here!" he yells, "Go on, stop causin' trouble."
I am in my stocking feet, with no cell phone, wallet or back pack. I stare at his snaring face and I can't. I just can't walk away. In for a penny, in for a pound. I sit down.
I am in my stocking feet, with no cell phone, wallet or back pack. I stare at his snaring face and I can't. I just can't walk away. In for a penny, in for a pound. I sit down.
In the vast majority of this type of case I read about, the TSA and/or cop seem to escalate the situation by making unreasonable demands (i.e., shut up, stop asking questions, give up non-WEI personal property, or leave the airport without your wallet, shoes, or ID) in what seems to be an effort to egg the person on to behavior that can be used to justify arrest.
In the past, peace officers seemed to be trained to de-escalate situations. E.g., in this case "ma'am, why don't you and the TSM continue your discussion over here away from the screening line," or "Mr. TSM, she's not refusing to be screened, please screen her and let her on her way." But now that they are LEOs instead of peace officers, they just want to escalate and arrest.
Oct 21, 2011 | 3:08 pm
#29
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
The article states she was "shoved" away from the checkpoint, not "escorted," and she was without her personal property or even her ID and shoes. What's she supposed to do, grab a taxi and go home with no shoes, wallet, or phone? Walk home in stocking feet on hot asphalt roads? This really is becoming more and more of a police state.
In the vast majority of this type of case I read about, the TSA and/or cop seem to escalate the situation by making unreasonable demands (i.e., shut up, stop asking questions, give up non-WEI personal property, or leave the airport without your wallet, shoes, or ID) in what seems to be an effort to egg the person on to behavior that can be used to justify arrest.
In the past, peace officers seemed to be trained to de-escalate situations. E.g., in this case "ma'am, why don't you and the TSM continue your discussion over here away from the screening line," or "Mr. TSM, she's not refusing to be screened, please screen her and let her on her way." But now that they are LEOs instead of peace officers, they just want to escalate and arrest.
In the vast majority of this type of case I read about, the TSA and/or cop seem to escalate the situation by making unreasonable demands (i.e., shut up, stop asking questions, give up non-WEI personal property, or leave the airport without your wallet, shoes, or ID) in what seems to be an effort to egg the person on to behavior that can be used to justify arrest.
In the past, peace officers seemed to be trained to de-escalate situations. E.g., in this case "ma'am, why don't you and the TSM continue your discussion over here away from the screening line," or "Mr. TSM, she's not refusing to be screened, please screen her and let her on her way." But now that they are LEOs instead of peace officers, they just want to escalate and arrest.
Oct 21, 2011 | 3:39 pm
#30
Join Date: May 2011
Programs: Delta Diamond Medallion 1MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Gold, National Car Executive Elite
Posts: 550
TSA has created a nasty catch-22 where the TSA employee "stops the screening process" by engaging with the "targeted" passenger by refusing to continue screening until the passenger stops speaking whatever questions or statement they have, then accusing the passenger of stopping the screening process. Then using that as justification for claiming "interference with screening," and using that as a justification for (supposedly lawfully) ordering the passenger to exit the checkpoint, thus creating a situation where if the passenger continues to contest TSA's unreasonable actions, they get arrested for "disorderly conduct."
TSA can use this process to get any passenger arrested as long as the passenger doesn't cave in, regardless of what the passenger's beef/complaint is.
TSA can use this process to get any passenger arrested as long as the passenger doesn't cave in, regardless of what the passenger's beef/complaint is.