Bart

Has nothing to do with making you feel safer; has everything to do with accountability. An item was discovered that exceeded the threshold for merely explaining the options of how the passenger could dispose of it, and the TSA supervisor has to account for how the matter was handled. I would think that as a taxpayer, you'd want some sort of accountability. Could be wrong.

As for amateur hour at 30,000 feet with who knows who being armed and shooting up the aircraft, I respectfully disagree. Your post seems to indicate a hotheadedness that makes me glad you aren't armed inside a passenger cabin.

eyecue

I am going to pull a BART and tell you to test your theory! Bring an item to the airport that is an obvious violation of CFR like a knife that is over three and half inches or perhaps a gun. When it is discovered in your carry on, test your ideas and lets see who is right. AS far as your theory on the right to refuse to identify yourself goes, lets look at the case that is known for that. Miranda v Arizona.
1. You have the right to remain silent, anything that you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
So you tell them that you are JIM SMITH. Pretending for the sake of argument that is your real name. How is that going to be used against you ?
Are you saying that by refusing to provide ID you can circumvent the whole process? It doesnt work that way. IF you bring a prohibited item then you are alleged to have violated the law, in order to uphold that allegation you are entitled to a hearing (as opposed to just paying the fine.) In order to have that hearing then you have to be notified and therefore have to give information to the allegors.

Dovster

You know that a crime has been committed by me. You do not know who I am. If I can walk away before an LEO can arrest me, I have incriminated myself by giving you the name of the lawbreaker (me). You can now have an LEO pick me up at my home.

No, I do not. I only have to provide that information in order to get into the sterile area. If you want to allege that I have committed a crime, and there is no LEO available to arrest me on the spot, you are going to have to tell the LEO who it was that committed the crime. I certainly do not have to facilitate that for you.

red456

"In order to have that hearing then you have to be notified and therefore have to give information to the allegors."

My neighbor, Joe Blow, who doesn't know me from Adam, sees me shoot two of his cows. He comes to my front door and asks for my name so he can tell the police who to arrest. I most certainly don't give him my name - that's for the police to determine after they arrest me.

Same with the TSA - I don't give them information that can cause me potential harm. If they want to get a LEO to arrest me with my knife, that's fine. But the TSA doesn't get any information from me at all.

eyecue

You guys are out there with your interpretation of civil rights. Remember Martha Stewart? She was charged with obstruction of justice and that is what got her the jail time. At the very least you could be charged with avoiding civil process. When you are arrested on the SPOT for that, then you will be identified and then TSA gets your information from the LEO. Then you get that wonderful letter in the mail for the prohibited item along with having the charges piled on you that you have to answer. Here is an example of the term“Obstruction of Justice”
The term “obstruction of justice” encases a multitude of things prohibited under federal and state laws, including the evidence relating to a criminal investigation and/or prosecution. One of the laws under which Martha Stewart was convicted was 18 U.S.C. § 1505, which prohibits a corrupt obstruction of any proceeding by a federal agency or Congress. A non-exhaustive list of other conduct prohibited by federal laws on obstruction of justice includes withholding or falsifying documents or testimony responsive to a civil investigative demand made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act (see 18 U.S.C. § 1505); obstructing, by bribery, a criminal investigation of a federal crime (see 18 U.S.C. § 1510(a))
Martha Stewart was convicted for obstruction of justice, in part, because she changed a record of a message left by her broker regarding ImClone stock, and she knew that it was the subject of an anticipated federal investigation for inside trading.

Dovster

Don't you follow that Martha Stewart was convicted for an act that she performed (changing the record) and not for refusing to perform an act (incriminating herself) the refusal of which is protected by the Constitution?

red456

He doesn't get it, Dovster.


CHAPTER 73—OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE


Release date: 2004-08-06
§ 1501. Assault on process server
§ 1502. Resistance to extradition agent
§ 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
§ 1504. Influencing juror by writing
§ 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
§ 1506. Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail
§ 1507. Picketing or parading
§ 1508. Recording, listening to, or observing proceedings of grand or petit juries while deliberating or voting
§ 1509. Obstruction of court orders
§ 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations
§ 1511. Obstruction of State or local law enforcement
§ 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1513. Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
§ 1514. Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness
§ 1514A. Civil action to protect against retaliation in fraud cases
§ 1515. Definitions for certain provisions; general provision
§ 1516. Obstruction of Federal audit
§ 1517. Obstructing examination of financial institution
§ 1518. Obstruction of criminal investigations of health care offenses
§ 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
§ 1520. Destruction of corporate audit records

eyecue

It is a CRIME to take a prohibited item into a checkpoint! I dont understand if you guys are stuck on the civil part about it or what but: 1505 says in part "“Influencing or injuring witness before agencies and committees” and punished the willful removal, concealment, destruction, mutilation, alteration or falsification of documents which were the subject of a demand under the Antitrust Civil Process Act if done with the intent to prevent compliance with a civil investigative demand."
Therefore if you are asked to identify yourself persuant to a prohibited item discovery and you do not.......You have violated the spirit of the law that says willful concealment.
That is why there are courts! but in order to be heard in court, you have to present id. Lets not forget Nevada v Hiibel !!!!!!

Dovster

Murder is also a crime. In fact, in some places it is even considered more serious than taking a prohibited item into a checkpoint.

However, if I kill someone and a cop asks me if I did it I still have the right to say "I refuse to answer."

In the case at hand, if I bring a prohibited item into a checkpoint you know that the crime was comitted but you do not know who did it. If I tell you my name, you will know who did it -- and thus I will be incriminating myself.

Nevada v Hiibel was a different situation. The police who were investigating a crime could not identify Hiibel as the criminal, even after being given his name. Therefore, the courts ruled that the Fifth Amendment did not apply "absent a reasonable belief that the disclosure would tend to incriminate him".

Here, with you having eyewitnessed the crime, by giving you my name the disclosure would definitely incriminate me.

This would not stop a police officer from arresting me even without my name but if there is no LEO present I can just walk away without telling you a thing.

Bart

I think this has strayed into the absurd. Dovster is correct: you don't have to give your name to a police officer if you don't want to. However, several things will happen as a result.

First of all, forget about flying. The airline GSC will not allow a person involved in an unresolved security incident to board the aircraft. Period. End of that discussion.

Second of all, the police officer will take additional measures to properly identify the nameless person to make sure there are no outstanding warrants for the person's arrest. You are always free to pick your battles, however, refusing to cooperate with a police officer will certainly escalate the matter. Good luck in court.

Third of all, TSA will ultimately end up with the information it needs to report its end of the matter. If the information is not obtained from the uncooperative passenger, it will certainly be provided by the police officer who will obtain the information. Wouldn't be surprised if fines were assessed by TSA against the offender.

Dovster

Bart, I am not discussing refusing to give my name to a police officer. If there is an LEO on the spot it would not serve me any benefit to keep my name secret -- the rest of your scenario would undoubtedly play out.

I am talking about refusing to give my name to the TSA -- and instead walking away from the checkpoint (but not towards the sterile area).

In this case, the TSA would have to figure out some other way to identify me before any arrest could be made. If we are discussing a small airport, with only one security line, they could possibily find the name of the one passenger who checked in but did not show up at the gate.

If this is a major international airport, however, the situation is different. I could probably walk out of the terminal, have a smoke, and come back a short while later, go through a different line, and get to my flight. In this case, the TSA would never know who I was.

myrgirl

Okay, I admit my knowledge of airports other than my own are limited, however...

Say you've brought something into the checkpoint and your ID is wanted and you choose to walk away so as to not give up your identity. Now, you say you'll just walk out of the airport away from the sterile area. Here's my problem understanding this: How is that possible? You can't leave by going backwards back through the metal detector which means the only way to go is forward. Since forward leads into the sterile area, aren't you stuck in the checkpoint - unable to move backwards or forwards?

bdschobel

And why can't you walk backward out of the checkpoint? Do the laws of physics prevent this?

Bruce

Bart

Well, also there are other factors. If all we're talking about here are a pair of scissors, pocketknife or other minor item, then there should be no need to obtain your name and other personal data. You should be given the option to leave the checkpoint to dispose of the item yourself or to abandon the item so that TSA can dispose of it.

If we're talking about major items such as a firearm, martial arts weapon, etc., then certain information has to be obtained by the TSA supervisor. An airport LEO will also be on hand to obtain the same information. You can either provide that information to the TSA supervisor, to the airport LEO, or to both. Either way, they're going to compare and share the information to make sure their reports are complete.

If we're talking about hazardous material, personal information also has to be obtained. Technically, an airline GSC has to be notified, and if one isn't, it is certainly your right to request that an airline representative be present so that either the airline rep and/or the TSA supervisor explain why it is necessary to have your personal information. It shouldn't be a big thing; however, I am also aware that many TSA supervisors take it as a personal insult whenever they deal with a passenger who asks questions and tend to perceive it as some sort of challenge of their authority. This is a leadership problem that TSA has yet to fix. Bullsh*t programs like ICMS (some hand-holding-Kumbaya-singing-touchy-feely employee-conflict-resolution thing TSA has going on) fails to address the fundamental leadership weaknesses that permeates throughout the TSA hierarchy, and incompetent supervisors still manage to infest the TSA ranks. Just being upfront here should you encounter a TSA supervisor who decides to regard your questions as some sort of challenge. Just remain calm and ask for an airline representative. They HAVE TO honor that request.

I'm being completely blunt here. Hope nobody tries to read between the lines. There are no lines to read. Common sense should guide TSA supervisors through these matters; however, that sense isn't so common. It's not just TSA; it's essentially any endeavor where judgment calls are subject to human error and other aspects of human nature.

myrgirl

No, but the rules do. You can't walk past the mag person and out through the metal detector. It's an entrance, not an exit.