Naked man arrested at Portland International Airport after disrobing at security
#106
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 733
TSA does everything it can to flip whatever happens back on the passenger who has been singled out.
TSA creates onerous, false, ineffective, and even dangerous screening policies. Many of them are secret, and in spite of the inability to know the rules, passengers are expected to follow these secret orders perfectly, exactly, and with the correct amount of obsequious submission.
And when we don't?
TSA blows a gasket, shuts down the checkpoint, creates work for its own self, calls the police, and then blames the passenger for the whole darn thing. The TSA "people" involved will do everything they can to get the police to charge the wronged party on some bogus charge (see also Stacey Armato, see also Andrea Abbott, see also Yukari Miyamae, see also John Tyner, I also speak from personal experience). When the police oblige, as in this case (see also Phil Mocek, see also Andrea Abbott, see also Yukari Miyamae) TSA throws up its hands, "Oh, our poor, poor Officers. They're just trying to keep you safe! Don't you understand! We fondle you for your safety! Your safety! You were treated with dignity and respect. You are also a liar."
And when the local cops fail them, they levy a fine. They coerce a self-incriminating testimony (in violation of Amendment the 5th) by threatening an $11,000 fine under color of authority. They then levy some ridiculous fine for "creating a disruption" (see also John Brennan).
It's the ultimate double jeopardy.
You either are charged and booked at the local level, or you are fined at the federal level. It's the most ridiculous racket ever created. It's like dealing with a mob made up of a bunch of ignorant cry babies.
#107
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
I'm pretty sure you'd "get away with it" in any state. While courts have repeatedly denied First Amendment protection for merely being nude (e.g., on a beach), if the nudity is part of an expressive conduct with a meaningful linkage to what's being protested (which is the case here), there's no question that it's protected speech.
#108
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
I'm pretty sure you'd "get away with it" in any state. While courts have repeatedly denied First Amendment protection for merely being nude (e.g., on a beach), if the nudity is part of an expressive conduct with a meaningful linkage to what's being protested (which is the case here), there's no question that it's protected speech.
#109
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Yeah the Pacific Northwest has a different standard for indecency. IANAL, but at least in Washington State the nudity must be accompanied by a lewd or obscene act that causes alarm to result in any charges. This results in some interesting sights, but it's only really a shock to newcomers.
As to the later poster who asked about disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025 is very specific as to what conduct is illegal and what happened wasn't among that list.
#110
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: DTW
Programs: DL 0.22 MM, AA 0.34 MM, PC Plat Amb, Hertz #1 GC 5*
Posts: 7,511
The behavior that will change is on the part of the arresting LEO organization (who won't arrest "offenders"), and the prosecuting office (who won't charge them). I don't see this changing the behavior pattern of the TSA (they can still refuse to execute the pat-down, or require a "private" location).
Last edited by sbagdon; Jul 23, 2012 at 10:43 am
#111
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,714
The behavior that will change is on the part of the arresting LEO organization(who won't arrest "offenders"), and the prosecuting office (who won't charge them). I don't see this changing the behavior pattern of the TSA (they can still refuse to execute the pat-down, or require a "private" location).
If a pax is nude, why is a 'patdown' necessary?
If national security was truly TSA's primary interest, the organization would welcome pax who approached the checkpoint clad only in swimwear. It leaves far less to 'process'. Instead, when it happens, TSA wants the pax to 'cover up' so he/she can be groped. ?????
#112
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,126
This is the irony.
If a pax is nude, why is a 'patdown' necessary?
If national security was truly TSA's primary interest, the organization would welcome pax who approached the checkpoint clad only in swimwear. It leaves far less to 'process'. Instead, when it happens, TSA wants the pax to 'cover up' so he/she can be groped. ?????
If a pax is nude, why is a 'patdown' necessary?
If national security was truly TSA's primary interest, the organization would welcome pax who approached the checkpoint clad only in swimwear. It leaves far less to 'process'. Instead, when it happens, TSA wants the pax to 'cover up' so he/she can be groped. ?????
You already know that TSA procedures have nothing to do with security.
#113
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 616
This is the irony.
If a pax is nude, why is a 'patdown' necessary?
If national security was truly TSA's primary interest, the organization would welcome pax who approached the checkpoint clad only in swimwear. It leaves far less to 'process'. Instead, when it happens, TSA wants the pax to 'cover up' so he/she can be groped. ?????
If a pax is nude, why is a 'patdown' necessary?
If national security was truly TSA's primary interest, the organization would welcome pax who approached the checkpoint clad only in swimwear. It leaves far less to 'process'. Instead, when it happens, TSA wants the pax to 'cover up' so he/she can be groped. ?????
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/check...ident-fll.html
She had to put clothes back on so she could be patted down.
#115
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
This is the irony.
If a pax is nude, why is a 'patdown' necessary?
If national security was truly TSA's primary interest, the organization would welcome pax who approached the checkpoint clad only in swimwear. It leaves far less to 'process'. Instead, when it happens, TSA wants the pax to 'cover up' so he/she can be groped. ?????
If a pax is nude, why is a 'patdown' necessary?
If national security was truly TSA's primary interest, the organization would welcome pax who approached the checkpoint clad only in swimwear. It leaves far less to 'process'. Instead, when it happens, TSA wants the pax to 'cover up' so he/she can be groped. ?????
Mike
#116
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 105
"disordely conduct" in my opinion is an unConstitutional charge as it is vague and over board. What is disorderly? No one knows except the 800lb gorilla who will use disorderly as a means to unnecessarily the situation into a resisting arrest.
I was please to find out the man was found not guilty. Trumped up charges all around on that guy.
Trumped up charges are used to instill fear in the general public in order to coerce compliance with issue the general public is opposed too.
I was please to find out the man was found not guilty. Trumped up charges all around on that guy.
Trumped up charges are used to instill fear in the general public in order to coerce compliance with issue the general public is opposed too.
#117
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
That depends on the state. If you read the Oregon statute, you'll find that it's not in the least vague or overbroad. On the other hand, the one in Florida is and has been held to be so by the courts.
#118
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: PDX
Programs: TSA Refusenik charter member
Posts: 15,978
Yeah the Pacific Northwest has a different standard for indecency. IANAL, but at least in Washington State the nudity must be accompanied by a lewd or obscene act that causes alarm to result in any charges. This results in some interesting sights, but it's only really a shock to newcomers.
Last edited by essxjay; Jul 24, 2012 at 9:57 pm
#119
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: MEL, PER, PBO, occasionally ships, oil rigs and other places that no sane human being should ever find themselves
Programs: IHG RA, PC Plat, QF Plat/LTS
Posts: 804
Like others have said, there was never any chance of a conviction on the Indecent Exposure charge. The elements of the crime, which have to be met in order to secure a conviction, simply weren't there.
Regarding the Disorderly Conduct charge, it's still pretty weak. The only thing that may, and it's a BIG may, have gotten him is:
(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority; OR
(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
I think any lawyer would be able to tear apart either of these two arguments but I also think another good lawyer may have been able to convince "a group of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty" that those elements have been met.
I'm actually surprised that the DA (or DPP or whatever they have in Oregon) even filed on this one....
Regarding the Disorderly Conduct charge, it's still pretty weak. The only thing that may, and it's a BIG may, have gotten him is:
(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority; OR
(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
I think any lawyer would be able to tear apart either of these two arguments but I also think another good lawyer may have been able to convince "a group of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty" that those elements have been met.
I'm actually surprised that the DA (or DPP or whatever they have in Oregon) even filed on this one....