I searched to see if this had been posted but couldn't find a mention so apologies if my search techniques just suck and it's already made it here...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...a-Revolution-2)

Oct. 17, 2011
Albuquerque International Sunport Security Checkpoint:

I pass a camera crew filming the ticket counter. I stop and consider telling them what I am about to do, but decide against it. They probably won't care. Instead, I wheel my baggage to the security area.

I can feel my heart beat in my chest. I've never done anything like this. I've always said �Yes sir,� even when I didn't agree. Even this simple act fills me with conflicting emotions.

New Mexico is far warmer than my native Pacific Northwest. I'm sweating by the time I reach the first inspection of my ID. I'm sure I already look like a terrorist. The TSA agent, perched on his stool, takes no notice. I look enough like my driver's license and I have a valid airline ticket. He black lights my ID and lets me pass with hardly a glance.

I've come here to moonlight from my real job. My daughter had an operation, and I had to come up with thousands in deductible. She's in college and, so far, I've managed to keep her from becoming a debt slave, like her mother. I took eight extra weekends of work in the Land of Enchantment to cover the cost. I'm lucky, I guess, I can do that. Others, with fewer job opportunities, have no choice but to go bankrupt.

My heart kicks it up another notch when I get to the conveyor belt. Shouldn't have had that coffee this morning but thank God I didn't eat anything, or I'd be hugging the trash can right now.

Come on, I tell myself, what are they going to do? Confiscate your toothpaste? Say something mean to you? So what. Relax. You can do this. You should do this. You have to do this.

*snip*

Read more on the blog... it's long, but it's worth it.

The disrupting the screening process is a slippery slope. While I applaud the stance I think given TSAs lack of any real authority, any action that can be perceived as a disruption by a TSO and gives them cause to call in a LEO will probably not end well. I.e. I do not think it is worth while to provoke things that put the TSO on the offensive when they do have something to back them. However, putting them in the defensive is another matter. With either, it would behoove those that do, to do it in their home city rather than 1000 miles away.

I guess this person didn't do her homework; they don't take kindly to the Constitution in ABQ. (Remeber Phil?)

That said, this sounds pretty disorderly. It would be helpful if people who choose to flex their rights actually knew where those rights end and criminal conduct begins. Things in the blog post such as "I say as loud as I can . . ." and then "I yell . . ." and then "I shout . . ." and then "I yell . . ." speak to disorderly conduct, not to First Amendment rights. Time, place and manner, people. Phil didn't yell and was respectful and the cops created the disorder; it seems like the opposite in this case.

Hard to say whether this individual was disorderly or not, but the very thought that the words of the US Constitution were what sparked an arrest make me sick to my stomach.

'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.

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...

Emphasis above added.

I guess I'm pretty stupid also. Can you tell me exactly at what point the assault took place? If not, then could you be honest enough to admit that the offense she was actually guilty of was "contempt of cop" or, more precisely, "contempt of TSA"?

Which is odd...you'd think they'd thank her for that.

She was arrested for disorderly conduct (i.e. yelling and making a scene). It appears she did interefere with the screening process (a civil violation) as well, but that's not what she was arrested for. With respect to Sec. 46503, you can argue that her conduct falls within its scope, but that's not what she was arrested for.

Not surprisingly, I read it differently.
In the spirit of the 1st Amendment I would hope that would not influence the fine, which is a set scale anyway I believe. But then the TSA does not recognize the 1st Amendment or any others so anything is certainly possible in a kangaroo court.

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.

Indeed. Yes, government workers are known for being lazy; TSA has its fair share of lazy workers, too. I have worked with some of them. But that doesn't really change that she planned this... all her descriptions of her heart pounding before she even arrived at the checkpoint... This wasn't someone who was surprised about what screening would entail, and then became upset. This was planned. Which is why its amazingly stupid she post this story online. And knowing many TSA empoyees come to this site, including Blogger Bob, all of us whom can forward this to regulatory, it did her no help by posting this here. Just saying.

I disagree. It sounds like she was more than willing to go through the checkpoint. The suit guy is pushing her toward ticketing. Is it that distracting to have noise during a screening? What do you do with crying kids? Are they disrupting the process? Heaven forbid people actually hear what our rights are from some "idiot" retired AF officer/physician.

__________________________________________________ _______________
From the article:"He stands in front of the metal detector--the first place they usually screen me. He tells me I am holding up the line. I drop my voice and tell him to go ahead and screen me. I'll take the pat down...

He asks me to go with him to some undisclosed location to �talk�. He indicates with his hand somewhere back toward ticketing, away from being screened. I decline. He tries to gently guide me with a hand on my elbow, like we're on a date, pushing me back up the line. I stand firm. I want to go forward, let them pat me down while I read the Fourth Amendment to my fellow citizens.

That is correct. And there is NO doubt that she will be fined. 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? Its very, very possible. And then regulatory can forward it to TSA CI, and they could decide to press charges.

Now, I don't believe THAT will happen - but its a possibility. Which is why it was stupid of her to post her possible criminal activity online; and why it was not good to post this link on a site where TSA employees come visit. Again, just saying.

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.