Update on Mocek v. Albuquerque et. al.
Jan 28, 2013, 11:15 am
#46
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
Last Thanksgiving, I distracted 4 clerks, including a supervisory clerk, by presenting a NEXUS card as ID.
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 11:32 am Reason: readability
Jan 28, 2013, 8:13 pm
#47
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Last I checked, and I'm sure the lawyer types would agree, there can be a world of difference in 'identifying' oneself and being required to produce 'identification'. Nitpick maybe, but, the courts should not be attempting to construe the two as equivalent. To me, it was additional confirmation of bias among the myriad of other hoops it appeared the judge was jumping through to make his case in the ruling.
Jan 28, 2013, 8:33 pm
#48
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Or the actual text of the NM statute viz:
NB concealing. Since Mocek's name was clearly on his boarding pass and AFAIK he did not offer any other name, it's hard to see how Browning concludes this occurred. Or maybe not so hard.
30-22-3 . Concealing identity.
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Jan 29, 2013, 10:50 pm
#49
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Apologies for the delayed response, everyone. I must have missed e-mailed notice from FT of further action in this thread. It's wonderful to see other people reading the order and discussing my case.
Fixed. Thanks for catching that.
Very roughly: He said that the police officers' actions were warranted, so even if the involvement of TSA staff led directly to the police officers' actions, there was no violation. It's like, "Well, the cops didn't violate his rights, so the airport security guards are certainly not guilty of such violation for simply calling in the cops, and I'll grant their motion to dismiss."
Fredd got it:
As did CZBB:
Judge Browning cites Glik in the order.
My recording made it very clear that Dilley and Wiggins lied, blatantly, in their incident reports and testimony. At trial, one of my lawyers repeated one of Dilley's false claims, started the video, and asked him to let us all know when we get to the part in the recording at which that happened. Of course, it played straight through to the end. If I remember correctly, we went through this several times. The guy is super-slick; an excellent liar. I'm almost positive the jury would have believed him if it weren't for the recording, which was the best evidence available.
For those who are unfamiliar or have forgotten: I presented no evidence at trial, called no witnesses, and did not testify. The prosecution entered my video as evidence.
That's how I read it.
Yep. Make up an unlawful policy that contradicts their own written policy, order someone to comply with this ad-hoc policy, bring over a half-dozen uniformed guards to gather around, call in the police, accuse the target of causing a disturbance, demand documentation of identity because of your criminal investigation of disturbing the peace, and arrest him for not providing it after he tells you he hasn't any to show you. It's pretty f...ed up.
Definitely. We're not required to have documentation of identity, much less to carry it with us and present it upon demand. If you listen to my recording---which includes the entirety of my interaction with Dilley and Wiggins from the time they arrived until they detained me, started walking me to the jail cell, confiscated my camera, and powered it off---you'll never once hear anyone ask who I was, ask my name, or demand that I identify myself. Dilley repeatedly told me he needed to "see [my] ID" and that I was required to "give [them my] ID".
Here's a transcript of the relevant portion:
I don't know how any of those statements could be interpreted as requests or demands that I identify myself.
Heh. Speaking of the boarding pass: On the police audio recordings (public record; this includes Wiggins' belt tape and the dispatch audio), while I'm sitting in the airport jail cell with Dilley concocting his story and Wiggins watching football on some pirate Internet sports site, you can hear Wiggins say he's going to go check with Southwest Airlines to find out if I checked any bags. He reports that I did not.
I just pulled up my transcript of it. I was going to quote that part, but I'll go back a bit further, since it's kind of interesting. Again, the audio from which I transcribed the following is all public record; I received the recordings via public records request, unrelated to my status as defendant, just as anyone could. This begins well after I've been arrested (it's unclear just when I was arrested, but I'm locked in a holding cell at this point):
I completely forgot! Sergeant Rojas actually referred to something he had, which was almost certainly my boarding pass, as a form of identification. These guys are so dirty.
Dirty, dirty, cops are Albuquerque Aviation Police Officer Robert "Bobby" F. Dilley #116 and Officer Landra "Wiggy" Wiggins #137.
Fixed. Thanks for catching that.
Fredd got it:
At times the reasoning appeared circular to me, but in fairness I suppose one step leads to the next.
- Mocek's rights to film are not "clearly established."
- By filming he thus "distracted" the TSA which is "creating a disturbance."
- The TSA thus were correct to call the police.
- The police were thus correct to conclude Mocek was creating a disturbance.
I love this sentence from the article (bolding mine):
Browning’s opinion said the federal officers are entitled to dismissal because Mocek had not shown First Amendment violations when they ordered him to stop filming. The officers would be entitled to qualified immunity, anyway, Browning said, because the “alleged right to gather news at an airport screening checkpoint and to record police activity in public are not clearly established.”
I suppose that means they haven't read the Justice Dept's brief to the Baltimore Police, or perhaps the 1st circuit's decision on Glik.For those who are unfamiliar or have forgotten: I presented no evidence at trial, called no witnesses, and did not testify. The prosecution entered my video as evidence.
Ergo, if the TSA tells you to stand "over there" and you say or do anything that they say "disturbs" them, or, as the judge synonymizes, "distracts" them, they have grounds to call the police, and the police in turn have grounds to suspect you, to demand i.d., and to arrest you.
Here's a transcript of the relevant portion:
Code:
14:36:32 00:01:57 Delapena He don't want to show his I.D., either.
14:36:33 00:01:58 Wiggins Alright. [inaudible]
14:36:35 00:02:00 Dilley Let's go sir. You're leaving the airport.
14:36:37 00:02:02 You're being escorted out at this point.
14:36:39 00:02:04 Let's go.
14:36:40 00:02:05 Dilley And if you refuse, we'll arrest you.
14:36:41 00:02:06 Let's go.
14:36:44 00:02:09 Buster
14:36:45 00:02:10 Mocek I-- I don't understand.
14:36:46 00:02:11 Buster, you're in trouble.
14:36:47 00:02:12 Dilley Actually, I-- I'm gonna-- I'm gonna need your I.D. now.
14:36:51 00:02:16 Mocek I-- I don't have any I.D. to show you.
14:36:51 00:02:16 Dilley Now
14:36:53 00:02:18 Dilley Sir, or we're gonna arrest you for concealing identity.
14:36:56 00:02:21 He doesn't even have an I.D. with him.
14:36:57 00:02:22 Mocek Am I required to--
14:36:59 00:02:24 Dilley Yes. You are now part of an investigation, a criminal investigation. You are required to give us
your I.D.
14:37:05 00:02:30 Mocek What am I being investigated for?
14:37:06 00:02:31 Dilley For disturbing the peace.
14:37:08 00:02:33 Mocek I haven't disturbed the peace.
14:37:09 00:02:34 Dilley Yes you are. Yes.
14:37:10 00:02:35 Dilley I'm gonna need a statement from you guys.
14:37:12 00:02:37 Dilley You understand me sir?
14:37:14 00:02:39 Mocek I-- I don't.
14:37:14 00:02:39 Dilley I need your I.D.
14:37:16 00:02:41 Mocek I'm going to remai-- remain silent.
14:37:17 00:02:42 Dilley Alright, let's go.
14:37:18 00:02:43 Mocek I'd like to talk to an attorney.
14:37:18 00:02:43 Dilley We're go-- we're gonna end up arresting you. Come on, let's go.
14:37:22 00:02:47 Dilley We're gonna search your property, and if we find I.D. on you-- on your property, we will arrest you
for concealing I.D.
I just pulled up my transcript of it. I was going to quote that part, but I'll go back a bit further, since it's kind of interesting. Again, the audio from which I transcribed the following is all public record; I received the recordings via public records request, unrelated to my status as defendant, just as anyone could. This begins well after I've been arrested (it's unclear just when I was arrested, but I'm locked in a holding cell at this point):
Code:
14:44:34 00:05:55 Dilley Do you have a driver's license or anything in your stuff?
Mocek I'm gonna remain silent. I'd like to talk to an attorney.
14:44:41 00:06:02 Dilley Okay, well we're gonna have to look through your bag for you to see if you do have an I.D.
14:44:44 00:06:05 Mocek I don't consent to any search.
Dilley Huh?
Mocek I do not consent to any search.
Dilley [inaudible]
14:45:32 00:06:53 ? [inaudible]
14:46:06 00:07:27 ? [inaudible]
14:46:13 00:07:34 Rojas If he refuses to depart the area [inaudible] can charge him with criminal trespass, too. Ah...
14:46:26 00:07:47 Dilley He refused several times to leave.
Rojas Okay. [inaudible] Don't forget the 90-day barment letter.
14:46:26 00:07:47 Dilley Okay. He's probably going to be uh, 16. We might... Probably just end up arresting him, and do the
barment later on. It's up to you.
Rojas Okay. How about-- Yeah, well, we need to make sure that we do a 90-day letter on him.
Dilley Yeah. You bet.
Rojas [inaudible]
Dilley Alright.
14:46:52 00:08:13 Rojas Is that the only form of documentation he had in his possession?
14:46:52 00:08:13 Dilley No, we're gonna find out. He said that he doesn't want to give us any information.
14:46:59 00:08:20 Mocek I don't consent to any search.
14:47:04 00:08:25 Dilley [inaudible] have a seat.
14:47:07 00:08:28 Dilley You wanna-- you wanna identify who you are, sir?
14:46:59 00:08:20 Mocek I'd like to remain silent. I want to speak to an attorney.
Dilley You don't want to identify yourself? You can say yes or no on that. Okay. I assume your silence
says no. You're gonna be booked under John Doe. You will remain in jail until the FBI is able to
identify who you are.
14:47:31 00:08:52 Mocek Does the law require me to provide my--
14:47:33 00:08:54 Dilley Sir please don't talk. You asked-- You said you don't want to talk, and you leave it at that. We're
not going to answer any questions. We're not going to ask you any questions. Please do not talk any
further. We've given you a chance to talk.
14:48:16 00:09:37 Dilley Cannabis? Yeah...
14:48:41 00:10:02 Dilley In regards to booking [inaudible] they have to identify him through the FBI now.
14:49:22 00:10:43 Wiggins He must be a law student
Dilley Huh?
14:49:25 00:10:46 Wiggins Must be a law student.
Dilley Well, he's getting a first-hand experience right now.
Dilley Come here for a second so we can witness me counting this money. [inaudible]
Wiggins [inaudible] booking slip [inaudible]
14:50:18 00:11:39 Dilley Hang on a second. 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 20, 40, 60, 80, 200, 20, 40, 60, 80, 90, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99.
Two hundred and ninety nine dollars inside his wallet. Lemme double-check to make sure there's not...
[inaudible] fifteen dollars
14:51:56 00:13:17 Dilley He's John Doe, we don't have to give him-- we don't have to give him anything back, actually.
14:52:06 00:13:27 Dilley I would've at least made up a name if I were in that situation. He's a law student, he should know
that. He's not even authorized to be flying because he doesn't [inaudible]
14:52:21 00:13:42 Dilley [inaudible] may find [inaudible]
14:53:05 00:14:26 Dilley Take a seat, sir. Have a seat, sir. No, sit on the bench, sir. Thank you.
14:53:45 00:15:06 Dilley [inaudible] enough to say
14:53:47 00:15:08 Wiggins [inaudible] ID [inaudible] driver's license? [inaudible]
Dilley No, not even that. He had a purpose to come here. It wasn't to fly.
Wiggins Mmm hmm.
Dilley 10, 116. (radio 14:54:15 +00:00:02)
Comm 110, go ahead. (radio 14:54:15 +00:00:05)
14:54:28 00:15:49 Dilley This individual has no I.D. with him. Ask TSA if he was presenting an I.D. to them and in their
statement, have them explain that, and have them, uh, describe how procedure is for allowing someone
to fly who does not have an I.D. please (radio 14:54:15 +00:00:10)
Comm 10-4. (radio 14:54:15 +00:00:35)
Comm Last unit calling, you can in extremely 10-1. (radio 14:56:09)
116, 110, 49 was relayed, so we'll put that in the statement. (radio 14:57:07)
Comm 10-4 (radio 14:58:01 +00:00:08)
14:55:08 00:16:29 Wiggins [inaudible]
Dilley Yeah, I just wanted to-- I wanna be, um...
14:55:26 00:16:47 You take all the [inaudible]?
Ah... Yeah
You might want to double-check it though,
14:56:03 00:17:24 Dilley You know, I'm all for somebody having their, their beliefs, but when you create a situation at the
checkpoint that causes a disturbance
14:56:51 00:18:12 Dilley [inaudible] Ibuprofin [inaudible]
14:57:31 00:18:52 ? [inaudible] yeah nasty .... [inaudible]
14:58:08 00:19:29 Dilley [inaudible] so we can't verify him [inaudible] John Doe [inaudible] He's gonna be [inaudible] for a
month, 'cause, uhm the feds won't release him 'cause they're under, uh, [inaudible]
14:58:26 00:19:47 Wiggins I'm gonna go out and talk to Southwest and see what's the deal with this. See if they presented. If
you need me to come back just give me a holler.
Dilley Okay.
15:02:02 00:23:23 Dilley [on phone] Hey girl. Give me a case number, please. Okay. It's alright. Yes. The, uh-- you need
the, um, nature of the call. Okay. 39, refusing to obey, and then, um, okay. Hang on a second.
[radio interruptions, completes call]
15:05:16 00:26:37 Wiggins They didn't check any bags, or didn't at check in with, uh, with Southwest.
Dilley [inaudible] probably [inaudible] this for now
Dirty, dirty, cops are Albuquerque Aviation Police Officer Robert "Bobby" F. Dilley #116 and Officer Landra "Wiggy" Wiggins #137.
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 11:42 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Jan 30, 2013, 4:31 pm
#50
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
The liability of the TSA clerks for false report is interesting. Let's look at hypotheticals:
1. TSA clerk (or any other private citizen) calls over a LEO and falsely says "I saw Mr. Mocek steal money from a wallet." LEO decides to arrest Mr. Mocek based on that false report. There is a cause of action for malicious prosecution in most states.
2. TSA clerk (or any other private citizen) calls over a LEO and truthfully states "I saw Mr. Mocek carrying a briefcase." LEO contacts Mr. Mocek, knowing that the "accusation" of carrying a briefcase isn't illegal, but wonders if Mr. Mocek is doing something else wrong. The LEO and Mr. Mocek don't get along well and the LEO arrests Mr. Mocek. The truthful report that Mocek was carrying a briefcase (even though it isn't illegal)does not lead to a cause of action against the private citizen. The LEO and Mr. Mocek do or don't have an issue between them depending on what happened.
3. TSA clerk (or any other private citizen) calls over a LEO and falsely says "I saw Mr. Mocek carrying a briefcase and I think it is against the law to carry a briefcase in public." The LEO and Mr. Mocek don't get along well and the LEO arrests Mr. Mocek. The false report that Mr. Mocek was carrying a briefcase, even combined with the false (or truthful) statement that the private citizen thinks it is illegal, still doesn't create liability against the TSA clerk. It is the LEO's job to know what is illegal and it is the LEO's job (unless it is a citizens arrest) to decide whether there is probable cause to effect an arrest.
1. TSA clerk (or any other private citizen) calls over a LEO and falsely says "I saw Mr. Mocek steal money from a wallet." LEO decides to arrest Mr. Mocek based on that false report. There is a cause of action for malicious prosecution in most states.
2. TSA clerk (or any other private citizen) calls over a LEO and truthfully states "I saw Mr. Mocek carrying a briefcase." LEO contacts Mr. Mocek, knowing that the "accusation" of carrying a briefcase isn't illegal, but wonders if Mr. Mocek is doing something else wrong. The LEO and Mr. Mocek don't get along well and the LEO arrests Mr. Mocek. The truthful report that Mocek was carrying a briefcase (even though it isn't illegal)does not lead to a cause of action against the private citizen. The LEO and Mr. Mocek do or don't have an issue between them depending on what happened.
3. TSA clerk (or any other private citizen) calls over a LEO and falsely says "I saw Mr. Mocek carrying a briefcase and I think it is against the law to carry a briefcase in public." The LEO and Mr. Mocek don't get along well and the LEO arrests Mr. Mocek. The false report that Mr. Mocek was carrying a briefcase, even combined with the false (or truthful) statement that the private citizen thinks it is illegal, still doesn't create liability against the TSA clerk. It is the LEO's job to know what is illegal and it is the LEO's job (unless it is a citizens arrest) to decide whether there is probable cause to effect an arrest.
Jan 30, 2013, 4:47 pm
#51
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
FT is a web board. It's akin to a conversation in a pub. In fact, NZ (& other) courts have ruled such places as such, so a lower standard applies. If it were a professional forum (such as a site for lawyers with restricted access to entry & posting) it might be a different story.
I'd be surprised if anyone ever gave FT any credibility in a meaningful legal sense. It can be informative and interesting, and even entertaining, but I'd have to question anyone that ascribed "seriousness" and "professional standing" to it. YMM(obviously)V
I think you'll find what they said was not criminal. It might, arguably, be defamatory, but defamation is very rarely a criminal activity, and almost impossible to be such viz a public figure in a public place and in the context in which discussion here occurs. Of course, you accusing them of engaging in criminal acts is also nominally defamatory so they should just respond PKB. Oh, the humanity of it all! Backing to discussing the subject at hand?
I'd be surprised if anyone ever gave FT any credibility in a meaningful legal sense. It can be informative and interesting, and even entertaining, but I'd have to question anyone that ascribed "seriousness" and "professional standing" to it. YMM(obviously)V
I think you'll find what they said was not criminal. It might, arguably, be defamatory, but defamation is very rarely a criminal activity, and almost impossible to be such viz a public figure in a public place and in the context in which discussion here occurs. Of course, you accusing them of engaging in criminal acts is also nominally defamatory so they should just respond PKB. Oh, the humanity of it all! Backing to discussing the subject at hand?
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 11:28 am Reason: reference to deleted post
Jan 30, 2013, 6:22 pm
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,121
Jan 31, 2013, 12:20 am
#53
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
I'm mostly comfortable discussing things that are public record, and am completely comfortable relaying them. It's jaw-dropping to observe this situation internally. I enjoy chatting about it with other people when they're interested.
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 11:44 am Reason: readability
Jan 31, 2013, 9:34 am
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Somewhere between here and there...
Programs: WWF, Appalachian Mountain Club
Posts: 11,595
TSA, regardless of the legality of the request, can tell you to stop filming and get away with it. So far, anyway, until we see some outcome from pmocek's appeal.
Jan 31, 2013, 9:39 am
#58
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
The false report that Mr. Mocek was carrying a briefcase, even combined with the false (or truthful) statement that the private citizen thinks it is illegal, still doesn't create liability against the TSA clerk. It is the LEO's job to know what is illegal and it is the LEO's job (unless it is a citizens arrest) to decide whether there is probable cause to effect an arrest.
I think this is a poor case to address that issue and doubt any court will in a decisive way. There's too much going on in this case that has nothing to do with photography and distracts from that issue. There's the whole issue of ID. There are policemen who provably lied. There's detention. Etc. The best case to make such a ruling would be one where somebody goes to the checkpoint, starts photographing, is told they must stop, complies, and then seeks a declaratory judgement that photography is permitted.
Last edited by essxjay; Mar 22, 2015 at 11:45 am Reason: merge consecutive posts
Jan 31, 2013, 11:43 am
#59
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
One part I have difficulty getting my head around is the distraction that is caused by things that *are* part of their jobs. It seems, for instance, that anyone in a wheelchair would cause as much of a distraction as my arriving without documentation of identity and attempting to document the actions of the security guards allegedly caused. From there, consider whether it's part of their jobs to assist people who arrive without identity documents and/or people who engage in recording at the checkpoint.
Code:
time elapsed name text (Mocek camera audio/video begins)
--------- --------- --------- ------------------------------------------
14:34:35 00:00:00 [inaudible]
14:34:35 00:00:00 Mocek Can you say that again?
14:34:36 00:00:01 Kill it off. Right now.
14:34:37 00:00:02 Mocek Did you say there's no vid-- no cameras or videotaping allowed at the security checkpoint?
14:34:42 00:00:07 Breedon I've got a uh law enforcement officer in route. Stand by. Kay?
14:34:46 00:00:11 Mocek Law enforcement officer?
14:34:47 00:00:12 Breedon Yes. A police officer!
14:34:49 00:00:14 Mocek Okay. Can you tell me why? What the pro-- Is there a problem?
14:34:53 00:00:18 Breedon Um.
14:34:55 00:00:20 Breedon That, right there.
14:34:56 00:00:21 Breedon Um... [inaudible]
14:34:57 00:00:22 Breedon First of all he's refusing to show ID. Second of all he's videotaping and taking pictures of the
process
14:35:01 00:00:26 Mocek Is there a problem with using a camera in the airport in publicly-- in publicly-accessible areas?
14:35:04 00:00:29 Yes, there is.
14:35:06 00:00:31 Mocek Okay.
14:35:08 00:00:33 Mocek I think you're incorrect.
14:35:09 00:00:34 Mocek But
14:35:09 00:00:34 Romero Why don't you put it down for now, okay?
14:35:11 00:00:36 Mocek I'd prefer not to.
14:35:11 00:00:36 Romero No. Put it down for now.
14:35:12 00:00:37 Mocek Can I get your name?
14:35:13 00:00:38 Romero I said put it down for now.
14:35:14 00:00:39 Romero I said put it down for now.
14:35:15 00:00:40 Mocek Don't touch me.
14:35:16 00:00:41 Romero Put it down for now.
14:35:16 00:00:41 Mocek Do not touch me.
14:35:17 00:00:42 Romero Put it down for now.
14:35:19 00:00:44 Schneier You need to--
14:35:19 00:00:44 Gallegos I'm bearing witness. I have a right--
14:35:20 00:00:45 Mocek I understand my rights.
14:35:21 00:00:46 step out of the way
14:35:22 00:00:47 Romero Put it down for now.
14:35:23 00:00:48 Mocek I'm not trying to interfere with your job.
14:35:24 00:00:49 Romero I'm telling you now: put it down for now.
14:35:26 00:00:51 Gallegos I am bearing witness. He's gonna [inaudible]
14:35:27 00:00:52 [inaudible] come here [inaudible]
14:35:29 00:00:54 unk1 These two are causing a disturbance
14:35:30 00:00:55 Romero He won't put his camera down, either.
14:35:31 00:00:56 Mocek I'm not--
14:35:31 00:00:56 unk1 taking pictures of all of us
14:35:32 00:00:57 Dilley Sir.
14:35:33 00:00:58 Mocek Yes.
14:35:34 00:00:59 Dilley Do me a favor.
14:35:35 00:01:00 Dilley Comply with what they're saying or we're gonna escort you out of the airport.
14:35:39 00:01:04 Dilley Done.
14:35:40 00:01:05 Dilley Done.
14:35:40 00:01:05 unk2 You're causing a commotion.
14:35:41 00:01:06 Dilley Okay? Done.
14:35:42 00:01:07 Mocek I haven't raised my voice. I'm not trying to stop you from doing your job.
14:35:46 00:01:11 [inaudible]
14:35:46 00:01:11 Dilley Did you-- Are you flying out, sir?
14:35:49 00:01:14 Mocek Excuse me?
14:35:49 00:01:14 Dilley Are you flying out?
14:35:50 00:01:15 Mocek Yes.
14:35:50 00:01:15 Dilley Okay. Well, comply with what TSA's rules and regulations are--
14:35:54 00:01:19 Recording devices--
14:35:55 00:01:20 Mocek I plan to comply with all their rules and regulations.
14:35:56 00:01:21 Dilley Before you interrupt me:
14:35:58 00:01:23 Dilley Comply with what they are a-- requesting of you, otherwise we will esc' you-- escort you out of the
airport.
14:36:03 00:01:28 Dilley Stand me?
14:36:04 00:01:29 Mocek I understand you.
14:36:05 00:01:30 Dilley Okay.
14:36:05 00:01:30 Mocek I-- I underst-- I plan to comply with all their rules. I do not believe that there is a rule that
bars me from using a camera in publicly-accessible areas of the airport.
14:36:14 00:01:39 Wiggins This is a federal checkpoint. You can't do it here.
14:36:15 00:01:40 Romero Right now, this is federal.
14:36:15 00:01:40 Dilley You can't do it.
14:36:16 00:01:41 Mocek I-- I've checked into it and I know that I can do it here.
14:36:18 00:01:43 Wiggins Well, you can be arrested, then you can check into it more.
14:36:21 00:01:46 Mocek For using a camera in a public place?
14:36:22 00:01:47 Wiggins This is a federal checkpoint.
14:36:26 00:01:51 Dilley Sir.
14:36:27 00:01:52 Mocek Yes.
14:36:27 00:01:52 Wiggins You're almost there. You pushin' it, okay? You're really pushin' it."
14:36:28 00:01:53 You know, you're--
14:36:29 00:01:54 Now you're-- Now that you--
14:36:30 00:01:55 Delapena Stand by
14:36:31 00:01:56 [inaudible]
14:36:32 00:01:57 There
14:36:32 00:01:57 Delapena He don't want to show his I.D., either.
14:36:33 00:01:58 Wiggins Alright. [inaudible]
14:36:35 00:02:00 Dilley Let's go sir. You're leaving the airport.
14:36:37 00:02:02 You're being escorted out at this point.
14:36:39 00:02:04 Let's go.
14:36:40 00:02:05 Dilley And if you refuse, we'll arrest you.
14:36:41 00:02:06 Let's go.
14:36:44 00:02:09 Buster
14:36:45 00:02:10 Mocek I-- I don't understand.
14:36:46 00:02:11 Buster, you're in trouble.
14:36:47 00:02:12 Dilley Actually, I-- I'm gonna-- I'm gonna need your I.D. now.
14:36:51 00:02:16 Mocek I-- I don't have any I.D. to show you.
14:36:51 00:02:16 Dilley Now
14:36:53 00:02:18 Dilley Sir, or we're gonna arrest you for concealing identity.
14:36:56 00:02:21 He doesn't even have an I.D. with him.
14:36:57 00:02:22 Mocek Am I required to--
14:36:59 00:02:24 Dilley Yes. You are now part of an investigation, a criminal investigation. You are required to give us
your I.D.
14:37:05 00:02:30 Mocek What am I being investigated for?
14:37:06 00:02:31 Dilley For disturbing the peace.
14:37:08 00:02:33 Mocek I haven't disturbed the peace.
14:37:09 00:02:34 Dilley Yes you are. Yes.
14:37:10 00:02:35 Dilley I'm gonna need a statement from you guys.
14:37:12 00:02:37 Dilley You understand me sir?
14:37:14 00:02:39 Mocek I-- I don't.
14:37:14 00:02:39 Dilley I need your I.D.
14:37:16 00:02:41 Mocek I'm going to remai-- remain silent.
14:37:17 00:02:42 Dilley Alright, let's go.
14:37:18 00:02:43 Mocek I'd like to talk to an attorney.
14:37:18 00:02:43 Dilley We're go-- we're gonna end up arresting you. Come on, let's go.
14:37:22 00:02:47 Dilley We're gonna search your property, and if we find I.D. on you-- on your property, we will arrest you
for concealing I.D.
14:37:39 00:03:04 Dilley S15, 110. (radio 14:37:40)
14:37:43 00:03:08 Dilley S15, 116. (radio 14:37:40 +00:00:04)
14:37:45 00:03:10 Dilley There, sir.
14:37:48 00:03:13 Dilley Actually, do me a favor. I don't know what you have in your bags. This officer's gonna take your
bags. Put your bags.
14:37:54 00:03:19 Dilley 34 with me at uh 19, please. (radio 14:37:55)
14:37:56 00:03:21 Dilley Place your bag down there, please, sir.
14:37:57 00:03:22 Mocek I don't consent to any search.
14:37:58 00:03:23 Dilley You're not being searched. Place your bag down there. And if we arrest you your property will be
searched without [inaudible] won't need to.
14:38:04 00:03:29 Mocek I don't consent to any search.
14:38:04 00:03:29 Dilley Place your other bag down.
14:38:09 00:03:34 Dilley The officer [inaudible] bags for you.
14:38:11 00:03:36 Dilley Gimme your camera.
14:38:12 00:03:37 Mocek Can I get a receipt?
Jan 31, 2013, 12:37 pm
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
So at various points it's been mentioned that the recording was deleted while the phone was being held by the police, and later recovered. Was anything every done in regards to that? Destruction of evidence? Destruction of personal property (the recording itself is a property, created at that time), attempted perversion of the course of justice, etc., etc.? All sorts of interesting things spring to mind depending on the jurisdiction. As does use of a protected Uconnect account to make sure it couldn't happen in the first place.