You are absolutely correct, hats off to you.

I was not aware of Hiibel's ruling, thanks much.

Although you are correct in the circumstances of the case, I included Berkemer v McCarty, since, within the ruling, a clarification with respect to Terry v Ohio and providing identity was made.


<<"[T]he stop and inquiry must be `reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.'" Ibid. (quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 29.) Typically, this means that the officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain information confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions. But the detainee is not obliged to respond. And, unless the detainee's answers provide the officer with probable cause to arrest him, 31 he must then be [468 U.S. 420, 440] released.>>


Obviously with Hiibel, this is no longer of value.

I will have to research (another day) federal law to determine if a failure to identify law exists, I don't think it does. If not, the FAMs would still be in the same boat, if a detainee refused.


Disclaimer, but not a lawyer....hhhmmmm...your last name wouldn't happen to be "esquire", would it?

Gift??
 

My thought is that you are a super pain in the .... A GIFT ? A tootsie roll ?

Unless you are very good at avoiding encounters with law enforcement officers, get used to hearing this phrase: "Please place your hands behind your back, palms together."

The cuffs are more comfortable in the car if you slouch down in the seat.

I made reference to this before: in order for common sense to be employed, we must first have a "sense in common." We have to have a set of values and understandings that we all accept. It's clear that we don't have that.

But, in the traditional meaning of "common sense," I think the common sense-ical response would go something like this:

FAM: Sir, I am a federal air marshal [displays ID]. Why were you asking the flight attendant how many people there were in the crew?

Goalie: I was going to give them all a Tootsie Pop as a way of expressing my appreciation for their job. See, I have a bag of them here.

FAM: I see. How thoughtful of you. Sorry to have troubled you. Have a nice day.

There are lots and lots of stops made by cops that turn out similarly. I once stopped a car where I was all but certain that the driver was drunk. Turned out that he was eating a taco that he had just purchased, and the contents had dumped into his lap.

Many states did have "failure to identify" laws until around 1983, when Kolender v. Lawson was decided. Edward Lawson was a black man (well, he probably still is a black man <G>) with long dreadlocked hair who liked walking around. He especially liked walking through white neighborhoods, which caused the local residents to get upset and call the cops. The cops would stop him and ask him to show ID, and he wouldn't have any. He was arrested numerous times for violating California's then-valid "failure to identify" law. In nearly every case, although he tried to enter a plea of "not guilty" and take the case to trial on principle, the court would either dismiss the charges or release him with time served. Finally, a San Diego court took the case to trial (Bill Kolender was the chief of police in San Diego at the time). He was found guilty, and the appeal went all the way to the Supremes. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction and ruled that U.S. citizens have no obligation to carry identification. Most states removed their "failure to identify" laws from the books entirely. Nevada modified theirs so that the requirement is only that a person has to state their name when asked. Unless there is a federal law with a similar requirement, I don't think that a FAM could compel production of an identity document. It would be an interesting scenario, though, as anyone stopped by a FAM would likely be beyond the security checkpoint, and would have had to show some sort of identification in order to get there.

But you are absolutely correct that there is no obligation to provide any information beyond one's name. Even though it's only a Terry stop and not an arrest, it's still a custodial interrogation, and Miranda attaches.
No, not even close. When I was teaching criminal justice at colleges, students would frequently come to me for legal advice, mostly about traffic tickets, domestic violence charges, DUIs, and stuff that people get into now and then. I was always careful to make them understand that they weren't to take anything I told them as legal advice, and that in fact there were laws in most states that prohibited anyone except a member of the bar from giving legal advice. I didn't want some local judge crawling down my back over operating a law office out of the faculty area. I also had to caution them to be careful what they told me, as there was no attorney-client privilege (since I'm not an attorney), and I could conceivably be subpoened to testify against them in court.

One memorable student came to me with what seemed to be a routine request, until I asked him what he had been charged with. His reply: "Rape." We were in Georgia at the time, where it is technically possible to receive the death penalty for rape. I had him set up an appointment with the public defender from my phone, before I allowed him to leave the office. I never saw him again.

^ ^ ^

Ditto. I have actually used those very words to a police officer, who did, in fact, leave me alone!

Bruce

I wonder if you had answered, "No, I have an appointment I really need to make, " etc., what the result would have been?

I would assume that the FAMs could have asked the FA's to check the manifest and see who you were, then asked the airline for your detailed info even if you didn't provide it. Then maybe next time you flew, you'd be SSSS or worse, no-fly, if they weren't able to put to rest their suspicions.

It's a sad statement as to how much the terrorists have won that people get stopped for handing out tootsie pops, and that we have to worry about what will come of reports filed, etc.

Is it safe to assume you were being sarcastic?
If not, a few more such I suspect we might not have the pleasure of your company ;)

mike

Candy from strangers....
 

As children, we were taught not to take candy from strangers. Some of us still teach our children that. Who still lets their children roam around on Halloween??

Tootsie rolls do seem to be an odd "gift" to be handing out on a airplane. I think if I was a f/a, I'd probably think twice especially if the giftor was asking a lot of questions. As we tell our children, you can't be too careful these days.

up to a point
 

While Miranda v Arizona comes into play after you are arrested, it can have an impact if you are the focus of an investigation but are not under arrest.

I'm tending to agree with hiltonhead on this one....A few questions by law enforcment is not a problem, knowing that you can evoke "your rights" if you feel you are being questioned beyond a casual question or two.

bdschobel is completly wrong in his statement above.....Its exactly what police do...If I call in any...repeat any type of complaint to them....they "MUST" act. As an example, I call in to the police that my neighbor is killing his cat in the back yard.....don't you expect them to respond? No rights are being violated, and yes your neighbor has the right to refuse questioning, but they "MUST" investigate. Even if its a Air Marshall responding to a comment by a Flight Crew Member....

Not that I haven't seen incidents of abuse in the system, but the majority of Law enforcment is trying to just do their job.....serve society, enforce the laws given to them, and still make it home to their family at night....without creating a law suit by "fanatics" looking to cause kinks in the system because they can.....

That was kind of my point
 

My point was to err onthe side of caution. Be respectful, give your identity, but say nothing else. You have no idea if you are a suspect with 5th amendment rights or a witness whose commentary can be compelled at risk of a contempt citation.

As an example, you are in a gate area. You are in full view of the entire concourse, certainly not physically detained. You chat with the cops and say something incriminating. You are not yet under arrest, you are not being detained, you have no Miranda rights. Yet anything you say is open to use against you. Shut up and you will ultiamtely be a lot happier.

In these days of every last thing becoming, literally, a federal case, silence is better than golden.

--Paul

See, I wouldn't have gotten this far. The reasonable situation, to me, would have gone like this:

Hysterical FA: "Marshal! Marshal! There was a passenger who wanted to thank the FAs and give us a token of his appreciation!!?!?!!?"

FAM: "I think that's the tops! Have a nice day."

HFA: "OMG, but he was asking about crew staffing levels!?! Go arrest him! Aaaaahhhhhh!!"

FAM: "Well, I'd assume that if a passenger were wishing to give a gift, he'd have to know how many FAs were onboard. Anyway, minimum staffing levels are public knowledge and anyone who flies regularly would be able to guess the number of crew +/- one, so I don't see the problem. Take care."

It's funny, but that's a great analogy because, just like this security hysterial these days, the "bad Halloween candy" story isn't based on fact, either. There has never been a documented "razor blade in the apple" case, and I don't even know if there's been a "bad candy" one either. It's all about threats being blown out of proportion. Like the killer bees that were going to come and get us a few years ago.