jphripjah

Law enforcement officers met the plan and wanted to find a specific person who was on board. As to why they asked every passenger for ID, perhaps it was to make it look routine and to encourage compliance. If they ask the first three people for ID and they all show ID and walk off the plane then passengers 4-150 will likely do the same thing.

If they let the first three passengers go and just ask the fourth passenger for ID, there's a very good chance he'll ask "Why?" Then they have to explain why, and he might refuse. And then they would have to do that with everyone they demanded ID from.

Simply put, they asked everyone for ID because they know that Americans act like sheep when in a group and uniformed law enforcement agents ask them to do stuff. If there are 150 passengers on a plane, it's faster and easier to check
150 IDs than to check 35 IDs.

GUWonder

When new Admins/senior management come in and are there for change, they most often push for some kind of visible change and want to see the rank and file deliver on it. There is no good reason to believe that DHS/CBP or DHS/TSA wouldn't be in line to do such thing at such time.

Also, let's not ignore the reality that the administrative/bureaucratic machinery is gearing up for major budget change proposals, and one way to wage the battle for money is to ramp up the "security" show and play the audience. DHS -- and especially its POTUS-appointed head -- is anything but clueless about how to fight for keeping or growing the part of the federal budget wanted by DHS/DHS Secretary.

The dog and pony show we get from DHS/CBP/TSA includes the tail wagging the dog and dog whistles. Especially at this time.

But this kind of stuff isn't new to this year. But it also doesn't mean that management changes aren't responsible for some of this stuff this year.

CBP routinely skips around so as to focus on some but not all passengers. Including with regard to stops at the gate/jetbridge.

catocony

The best method seems to be what some use at the inland border inspections, as a number of videos show.

CBP: "What is your nationality?"
Driver: "Am I being detained?"
CBP: "Sir, what is your nationality?"
Driver: "Am I free to go?"
CBP: "Sir, where are you from?"
Driver: "Am I being detained?"

The combo of "Am I being detained" and "Am I free to go" usually results in the driver being allowed to pass fairly quickly, as the CBP officers know that they cannot detain someone at that point unless its very obvious they've crossed the border illegally. Just stopping drivers and asking them is, similar to what CBP is now saying about the JFK incident, is a "voluntary process" that appears very mandatory until a citizen pushes back a little.

GUWonder

Exactly.

Section 107

I have always found it strange that the Supreme Court has held that one must not be required to give up one right to exercise another but then also requires a person to affirmatively invoke a right to claim protection from it, especially when government agents (who are educated/trained on the law) are rarely required to inform a person about their rights and practical steps in "using" the right (Miranda is a prominent exception). I understand the reasoning (government's interests in determining the truth and all) but the deck is always stacked against the individual; it sure doesn't seem fair to me.

catocony

The vast majority of people tend to do what they're asked under the "I have nothing to hide so I have nothing to fear" idea. I do not subscribe to that. LEOs of all types count on that though, as well as people not knowing their rights. That's why the frequently bristle when someone does assert their rights - they don't expect it.

If I'm speeding (I always am) and get pulled over (rarely do), I won't even admit to going a particular speed. It's up to the LEO to tell you what they think you did wrong or are doing wrong. Anything else is a fishing expedition, and cops loving fishing.

TWA884

TheHill.com:
Also in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

jphripjah

I don't think this lawsuit is going to far if nobody spoke up at the time and refused to show ID. The claim that the flight attendant announced "you're not getting off the flight unless you show ID" seems far fetched to me, it's the first I've heard of it, it wasn't in the initial reports about this incident, and it's not how flight attendants talk.

I think it's more likely the flight attendants said "Please have ID ready for law enforcement officers," everyone "voluntarily" complied because people are intimidated by police, then hours later someone posted about it on social media and people started to realize this was intrusive.

catocony

The FAs comments were in the initial report. Look back through the thread at the time of the incident.

TWA884

Thanks for reminding me that there was an older thread discussing this incident.

The old and new threads are now merged.

The first mention of this particular event is in post #4 .

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

Boggie Dog

Doesn't CBP/ICE ( whatever they call themselves now) have authority to do a check within 100 miles of any border? How would this be any different than say the CBP check point on I-10 and at other points around the country?

Not saying I agree or support such actions because I don't. Should only have to clear immigration at the border.

Flaflyer

It galls me when the Cops and True Crime TV shows put someone in an interview room, tell them "You have the RIGHT to remain silent," then get ticked off when the person says "OK, I say nothing, I want a lawyer." The cops and narrator usually make a comment "The suspect lawyered up, he must have something to hide, he must therefore be guilty of something."

When a plane flies from California to New York, it is not an international entry to the US, unless Kansas and Nebraska airspace are foreign nations and landing in NYC is an international entry.

100 Mile Zone. Looks like seven or eight states are covered 100%, including Florida, where no point is more than 75 miles from the ocean.

Boggie Dog

Nor is driving through one of the many internal CBP checkpoints an international entry to the US. I'm just wondering what's the difference from a legal perspective. The flight originated and terminated within 100 miles of the border.

Loren Pechtel

Sure they haven't extended that 100 miles to measure from any international airport?

Flaflyer

You mean like DFW and ATL? Please don't give them any new ideas.