ND Sol

Feeling up an 82-year old grandmother perhaps?

RichardKenner

Aside from obvious cases or where there's a clear an unambiguous ruling from the highest court with jurisdiction, when somebody (even at attorney) says that something is or is not legal, they aren't stating a fact, but offering an opinion. Fundamentally, it's up to the courts to decide whether a specific action is illegal or not. In the case of photography within the checkpoint, it's far from settled law. If you, me, Phil, or a TSO states that it is or is not permitted, we're all expressing our opinion of how we interpret the law. If the courts were ever to settle the issue (which I think unlikely any time soon, as I said), some of us might turn out to have been wrong, but not to have "lied".

This distinction between "facts" and the law is fundamental to our justice system. You may note that when a court (even the US Supreme Court, which has final jurisdiction on the subject) issues a ruling about the law, it's called an "Opinion".

Carl Johnson

This distinction between "facts" and the law is fundamental to our justice system. You may note that when a court (even the US Supreme Court, which has final jurisdiction on the subject) issues a ruling about the law, it's called an "Opinion".[/QUOTE]

He wasn't interpreting the law; he was stating the rules of his employer. It is settled law. Nordstrom's permits shoppers to enter within the hours of 10 AM and 6 PM (or whatever it is). It's settled law, therefore, that a shopper entering during that time isn't trespassing. There's never going to be a court case about whether shoppers entering during normal hours and for normal activities are trespassing; that doesn't mean there's any question that it isn't trespassing, and a Nordstrom's employee isn't rendering a legal opinion when he or she responds "no, are you crazy?" if asked whether a shopper during normal hours is trespassing.

Court rulings come into play in cases such as setting up tables and running petition drives in places like shopping centers in California, whether the shopping center likes it or not. They don't come into play in determining whether it's legal for a customer to make a purchase in the snack bar, or to buy a t-shirt.

When a clerk says photography isn't permitted at the checkpoint, he's not rendering a legal opinion; he's lying. The TSA explicitly permits photography at the checkpoint, they train clerks that photography is permitted. Clerks have been explicitly told over and over that photography is permitted. The clerks don't own the checkpoints, their employer owns the checkpoints, and their employer consents to photography.

WillCAD

While it's true that TSA has stated, multiple times and through multiple venues, that it does not prohibit photography at the c/p, do we know for sure that they actually train the front-line TSOs on this fact?

Given the abysmal inconsistencies in policy throughout the US, many of which can be attributed to poor training, lack of training, or non-standardized training, I wouldn't be surprised if some TSOs are actually told flat-out that photography is prohibited. But mostly, I think TSA simply doesn't bother to include photography rules in the training at all, giving the agency an out if the subject ever actually does see a courtroom. "That is not TSA policy and we never trained that TSO to say that photography is prohibited, therefore we're not liable for his un-Constitutional actions."

Of course, the cynic in me sees an even simpler possibility: some front-line TSOs may not be edumacated enough to know the difference between "prohibited" and "permitted". Thus, when they here, "Photography is not prohibited", they think it means that photography is not allowed, and proceed from that false assumption.

"He's not just famous, he's IN-famous! He's MORE THAN famous!"

"Ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh!"

Carl Johnson

The clerk from GSO who has posted here says they train them on this over and over and over.

It isn't that they don't train them, it's that they don't fire people for incompetence, laziness, or abuse of passengers. They teach them that they are "on the front lines" against terrorism and that everything is the passenger's fault, so that when they are too lazy (for example) to know what a NEXUS card is, they blame the passenger.

But they are trained on what a NEXUS card is, just as they are trained that photography is allowed.

Mr. Elliott

It’s not that they don’t fire them, as government employees unless they commit a criminal act, they can’t be fired for incompetence, laziness, or abuse of passengers as easily as a private employer could. Government employees know this, so they take there is nothing you can do to me attitude when you have a confrontation with them.

This is the one main advantage of private screeners like the ones at SFO, they are not government employees and can be fired for incompetence, laziness, or abuse of passengers.

I’ll bet that the TSA suit that caused the problems with Stacy Armato, no matter what the outcome of her lawsuit is, will still have his job after the lawsuit is either dismissed or settled out of court, he may have to watch some videos for retraining purposes or be slapped on the wrist and told don’t let it happen again.

Mr. Elliott

ehasbrouck

Oral argument scheduled for March 17, 2015:

http://papersplease.org/wp/2015/02/0...moceks-appeal/

N830MH

Is that good news? Is he dismissed his civil rights lawsuit?

FlyingUnderTheRadar

His case was dismissed - not good news.

His case is being appealed and will be heard by the 10th Circuit Court - that is good news.

DemonDeacon

In reading the first 20 or so pages of Mocek's brief, it seems like he could really use a better lawyer

HawaiiTrvlr

I live here in Denver and added it to my calendar so I can go to the court bldg.

Boggie Dog

What's wrong with it?

DemonDeacon

Very poorly written stylistically and hard to follow. A big contrast with the government's well-written and easy to follow brief.

cestmoi123

Also, Mocek's brief has a number of typos, date errors, MS Word revision flags, etc. Badly in need of proofreading.

HawaiiTrvlr

Is anyone going to the hearing tomorrow in downtown Denver tomorrow? I was thinking of going down there and listening to the arguements. I am kind of looking foward to checking it out.

If anyone else is going, hit me up. It would be nice to meet other FTers.