Thanks for the answers.

I give the FAMs a good bit of credit for not asking for ID (or detaining you to run a check etc.) In this crazy era where people tend to think flashing a piece of laminated paper with your photo and name somehow proves you aren't "bad," and where the airline business is obsessed with checking passengers against secret blacklists, it's nice to see good non-intrusive police work carried out through a friendly convesation without the ID obsession.

Not exactly a clear interpretation of Miranda v Arizona. Several factors come into play to determine whether Miranda is required. The "just asking questions by law enforcement officer" is not the test to determine Miranda warnings. The two larger issues are, the environment you are questioned (Has my freedom of movement been restricted by the law enforcement officer?, if yes, then Miranda applies) this is based on what a reasonable person being questioned may think, and the scope of the questioning (identity, where do you work?, Miranda does not apply, although questioning for the particular crime does require Miranda, no matter the setting). If your colleagues at your department used the "just asking questions" tactic, they were not following Miranda, and, I imagine, lost the statements in a motion to suppress hearing.

In addition, witnesses do not have 5th Amendment protection. Which means, they can be compelled to testify.

Your "best way of handling the situation" is very relative. This may be the best way for you to handle the situation, if you don't mind being detained for up to 72 hours ("you are told that you are free to go, which will happen eventually"), while the investigation continues and no charges being filed. Since detentions usually take place in a jail cell, and not a hotel room, this doesn't sound very inviting.

Considering this specific incident, this would be quite a waste of taxpayer money (the much extended investigation, to the ultimate same conclusion).

An unlawful arrest may result in a recovery of damages, although, as long as the law enforcement officers acted lawfully, you would have no recourse.

Perhaps one aspect of my logic wasn't clear: I assume that these FAMs -- or any other LEOs, for that matter -- would conclude that arresting somebody for handing out tootsie pops is unreasonable and would let him go. I once had a police officer question me about shoplifting in a mall parking lot, while I was walking toward my parked car. Obviously they were looking for somebody else, as I have not shoplifted in over 40 years (I got caught, incidentally!). I did my usual, "Am I under arrest" routine until he got tired and let me go. He obviously concluded on the basis of this legal back-and-forth that I was not the shoplifter he was looking for.

Similarly, the FAMs in this case would likely have concluded pretty quickly that they were not dealing with a terrorist and sent him on his way. Under these circunmstances, the probability of sitting in jail while an investigation takes place is close to zero -- although not exactly zero, I must agree.

Bruce

This isn't quite correct. You can be lawfully detained without being arrested. This is called a "Terry stop," after the case of Terry v. Ohio. A law enforcement officer with an artculable suspicion (less than probable cause, but more than mere suspicion) to believe that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed can detain a person for "a reasonable period of time." The USSC has never defined what constitutes "reasonable," but has implied that it varies depending on the gravity of the offense suspected. Further, if the officer can articulate why the person being detained might be carrying a weapon that can be used to injure the officer, the officer can pat-search the detainee for weapons (a more intrusive search is not allowed, absent consent). During this detention, the detainee is required to state his name, if asked, but may refuse to answer any other questions if he chooses. The detainee may not be moved from the place of detention without his consent or elevating the detention to an arrest.

Officers make Terry stops regularly. I suggest that the stop that goalie was describing was a Terry stop, although I don't know how well the articulated suspicion would hold up in court. That part is always a crap shoot.

I agree completely. I think people see what they want to see. If they view the FAM or any other LE officer as an ogre desperate to intrude on their privacy and trample their rights, that's the filter through which they will view every action. I tend to respond to reasonableness with similar reasonableness, and, oddly enough, I am usually treated with courtesy and reasonableness in my infrequent contacts with law enforcement officers.

There is another reason for going along with the program that is more oriented to self-preservation. The law enforcement officer can probably make life more difficult and complicated for you if he chooses to do so. Agreed, he should be above this, but cops are human, too, and their egos are not insignificant. I made reference in another message thread to the act of flipping a highway patrolman the bird while driving down the freeway. It may be a constitutionally protected act of self-expression, but I can't imagine any good coming of it. As one of my colleagues used to say, "Don't mess with the alligator until after you have crossed the swamp."

That would depend on the basis for your suspicion. If you didn't like the way he dressed or that he stayed up nights, you would be blown off. If you reported that you smelled chemical ordors coming from his house, and that there was an undue amount of traffic in and out of his front door, that would be the "articulated" part of the suspicion. The first set of circumstances does not, in itself, indicate any illegal activity. The second is typical of a meth lab.

I believe that anyone with an unexplained interest in the number of flight crew members or other procedures not normally known to passengers would be a matter of interest to the FAMs, and if I were a FAM, I would be taking a closer look at the passenger that asked. If I were provided a reasonable explanation for the interest, I'd let it go. In order to investigate, one usually has to ask questions, and people with no ill motive typically answer them.

Amen copwriter and hiltonhead. ^ Your common sense is so refreshing! :D

Aha, just as I suspected, career criminal.

I believe that you are absolutley right, until....the FAMs report back to their supervisor and on up until it reaches D.C. D.C. (as I have gathered from your other posts, you know) is void of common sense. In the case of you the shoplifter (suspected, not actually caught), the police officer can let it go there, and no one will know the difference. Although, here is the frightening part, since D.C. can get spooled up over something like possession/distribution of tootsie pops, they initate an investigation and everything picks up where it left off. For me this would create more of a hardship.

Flight Crew to PAX ratio
 

I believe on most aircraft & flights within the USA, FAA staffing minimums are 1 crew (FA) to every 50 passengers. I'm not 100% sure on this; perhaps someone knows the exact language with respect to how the FAA determines crew minimums.

If on a 737 with 129 seats, I would expect 3 Flight Attendants. It's possible there may be an extra one, such as an FA in refresher training that just got his/her job back, but considering the financial conditions many US domestic carriers are in, they often go with the minimum.

With respect to larger aircraft such as the 747 or 777, it's possible a different set or varation of rules apply based on the number of exit doors and passengers. Not many US domestic carriers operate these on US domestic routes; I believe UA has a couple domestic 747s in a three class config, while DL, CO, AA and UA each have a few domestic 777 flights as well on trunk routes to feed international traffic.

Additionally, staffing may be higher than the minimum on some flights because of premium cabins, crew rest periods, etc -- but we're primarily talking about long-haul international here. On a recent 8 hour flight between Melbourne & Kuala Lumpur we had 2 Capitans and one First Office aboard because of the 8 hr duration, the FA to passenger ratio was very good up front, and I'm sure there was extra service crew on-board to handle breaks. 8 hrs while long is really more of a medium-long haul flight; but for a 777 on short a DEN-LAX flight, as an example, I wouldn't expect extra crew, whereas I would for DXB-EWR which came in around 14 hours (scheduled 14 1/2), despite both being 777 operated. The 8 hour MEL-KUL was also a 777, FWIW.

Anyways, with respect to most planes, I think if you calculate 1 FA to 50 passenger seats you're probably good, unless it's a 3 cabin domestic with premium service then there might be a higher ratio. Otherwise, 189 seats = 4 crew and instead of asking, perhaps provide 4 gifts. Just a thought at least! ;)

Best,

SDF_Traveler

Great explanation of Terry v Ohio, although I'm not sure about identifying yourself (Berkemer v. McCarty). Pay close attention to Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court (coming soon), as this may allow an arrest, for refusal to identify during a Terry stop.

Hiibel has been out for a while now. That incident took place about 100 miles east of where I used to be a cop, in the same state. In that case, a sheriff's deputy was responding to a report of a domestic disturbance taking place in or around a particular vehicle. The deputy located the vehicle with Mr. Hiibel standing outside of it, and a woman seated inside. The deputy explained his reason for stopping, and asked Hiibel for identification. Hiibel refused. The deputy eventually asked Hiibel for identification 11 times before placing him under arrest. Hiibel was convicted of obstructing and/or resisting a public officer and appealed his conviction on Fourth Amendment grounds. He claimed that he had no obligation to present identification to the officer under these circumstances.

Nevada actually has a specific statute that defines the limits of a Terry stop more rigidly. A Terry stop cannot go more than an hour, and anyone stopped must identify themselves to the officer on demand (Hiibel could have fulfilled this requirement by simply saying, "I'm Larry Hiibel" ). The U.S. Supreme Cout ruled that Mr. Hiibel did have an obligation to identify himself, and upheld the conviction.

Berkemer v. McCarty actually has more to do about when roadside questioning during a traffic stop (which does not fall under the Miranda requirement) ends and custodial interrogation begins. McCarty was stopped by an Ohio state trooper, who suspected him of driving under the influence. When asked at the scene of the stop, McCarty said that he had consumed two beers and smoked marijuana. The trooper arrested McCarty and took him for a breath test, which showed him not to be under the influence of alcohol. The trooper then asked McCarty more questions about his marijuana use, and McCarty made a number of incriminating statements in response. These were used at trial as evidence against him, and resulted in a conviction for driving under the influence of drugs.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case that the trooper's questions at the roadside about McCarty's use of alcohol and drugs were proper, and did not require a Miranda warning. But when McCarty was arrested and taken to the county jail, any questions asked thereafter had to be in the context of a custodial interrogation, before which a Miranda warning must be given if the responses are to be admissible as evidence.

Back to the original topic: the only requirement, in terms of answering questions, that a person stopped by a FAM has is to identify oneself. My personal interpretation is that (truthfully) giving one's name satisfies this, but the FAM might ask for an identification document. It's your call whether you want to provide this or not. If you don't want to answer other questions that the FAM might ask, don't, but I doubt that you will doing yourself any favors.

It occurs to me that basic civility and courtesy is a significant factor here. Some forum members seem to be motivated not to cooperate with questions from FAMs or other security/law enforcement people simply because they don't have to. Consider how that would impact my dealing with other people if I were to adopt that approach in other human interactions. When a waitress brings coffee to my table, I don't have to say "thank you." I don't have to. Moreover, I don't have to leave her a tip. After all, she gets paid for being there, and she has to bring me the coffee whether I tip her or not. Why should I?

My neighbor occasionally brings my garbage bin in from the curb on pick-up day if I haven't gotten to it yet - I also do the same for him. Maybe I should stop this. I get nothing out of it, and he might actually expect me to start bringing his bin in if I kept it up. Further, I never asked him to do this, so there's no need to thank him for it.

My point: I don't think anyone is giving up anything significant by answering questions asked by a FAM or a ticket agent. I haven't seen anyone present an argument that they will suffer some loss or indignity in doing so. The principle argument seems to be that they will make as big a deal of this as they can because they can. Sounds like protest for the sake of protest, and people that are way too full of themselves.

By the way, in case I give the wrong impression here: I am not a lawyer, have never been a lawyer, don't want to be a lawyer, and nothing that I say should be construed as legal advice.

I don't get it. A person interacting with a FAM is not ordering coffee. He's being prevented from going about his business by a person seeking to make him incriminate himself, and without even bothering about the business of articulable suspicion (because until the detainee asks to leave, the police officer or FAM is having a voluntary conversation.) This is not about being defiant, but about protecting oneself. If handing out tootsie pops is suspicious behavior, then how should I know what's going to get me thrown in the Navy brig off South Carolina incommunicado? I might say something that to me seems totally innocent, but in reality lands me in jail. Why should I take the risk?

Especially with the secretive and hysterical mood surrounding anti-terrorism efforts, speaking up sounds like a dumb thing to do. Arrest me or leave me the hell alone is my new motto.

Apparently you're not terrified of everything (because terrorists are everywher!!?!) like some people are.

That's probably a good thing.

I don't know about you, but if the waitress treated me like a criminal for trying to thank her or give her a tip (tip in this case being a lollypop), I wouldn't be too friendly with her either.

Some common sense would have gone a long way here. If applied this whole situation would have been avoided in the first place. If other people want to be terrified of everything, that's their business, but they shouldn't expect everyone else to participate in the carnival.