questioned by a fam
 

i'm not going to give out flight info but i had a "situation" on a m/r where i was asked to remain behind after deplaning and was questioned by a fam. evidently my giving out of the tootsie pops didn't sit well with one of the f/a's as she thought i was asking too many questions as to "the number of folks working so i could give out my gift", etc-i didn't do anything different than on any other flight but i'm now concerned as to what might happen as a result. i had no problem talking with the fams, explained what i was doing, what a m/r was, why i gave out tootsie pops, gave them my i/d and told them that if someone wanted to contact me that would be fine as well. they said that probably won't be necessary although they would have to do a report.

so now i'm a bit concerned as to what might happen on future flights-ssss to ?????

any thoughts

Probably nothing will happen. These guys must file thousands of reports every day. (They have nothing else to do!) I don't expect that anybody even reads most of them.

But I wonder if you handled the situation in the best way. Whenever a law-enforcement officer detains you (being prevented from leaving the plane is prima facie detention), you should immediately ask, "Am I under arrest?" That question should be the first thing out of your mouth (well, maybe after identifying yourself). If the answer is no, then ask, "So am I free to go?" If the answer to that question is no, then repeat the first question. Repeat this cycle as many times as necessary until either (1) you are actually arrested (very, very unlikely without probable cause -- and then you can sue) or (2) you are told that you are free to go, which will happen eventually.

And if you are actually arrested, remember to say, "I would really love to answer your questions, but I can't do it until I have a lawyer present. Sorry."

Bruce

I must have missed something in another thread. Explain to me about the handing out of tootsie pops? :confused:

Why should a person do this? Sounds as if the situation was handled perfectly to me. I really don't understand this attitude of being defiant just for the sake of doing it. Pushing everything to the limits, although perfectly legal, is quite childish. You sit here and tell everyone to "fight authority" as if it were some type of little game. Why in the world would someone go through all of the cycles when all they had to do was answer the question? You strike me as the type that prays for the day that you are illegally detained so that you can shout to the world that you were right all this time about the big, bad government. Talk about paranoia! It is a shame that when a cop has been called to the scene by a concerned citizen, he has to play "make me a martyr" with some people. Makes you wonder why anyone would ever go into law enforcement. I don't agree with giving gov't the power to include themsleves in our personal lives, but don't you think responding to the FAMS in a mature manner would be acceptable? The post says that the flight attendant mentioned it to the FAMS, and they responded. What were the supposed to do? Scamper away in fear of offending someone? They were told the truth and they dropped it. Good Job! This is how the system is supposed to work. Blowing snot bubbles everytime someone in gov't says good day to you is pointless. Believe it or not, I'm sure FAMS are people too. They were problably very glad to find out that the flight attendant's worries were unwarranted. Totally ridiculous!

Have a great day all! :p

No, I absolutely do not believe that FAMs should "scamper away in fear." By the same token, they should not bother people without probable cause. The fact that a flight attendant was concerned is not probable cause. You know that.

If I call the police and tell them that I'm suspicious about my neighbor, does that -- by itself -- give the police reason to start questioning my neighbor? I don't think so.

Bruce

ALWAYS ask if you are under arrest FIRST
 

The guy who said to ask if you are under arrest and then ask if you are free to go was EXACTLY RIGHT! I spent time in police work, and there's a little GOTCHA that few people know...

When you are questioned before you are placed under arrest, you are giving information FREELY and VOLUNTARILY and ANYTHING you say can and will be used against you. Miranda rights do not attach, and you are not required to be advised of your rights, until such time as you are under arrest. SOOOOO many times guys in my department would use the "just asking questions" part of things to gather PROBABLE CAUSE to then arrest you. Then your miranda rights attach, but it's also too late, you have already freely and voluntarily given then the information they needed. You cannot take it back, your miranda rights were never violated, and you're stuck. Give your identification, which you are required to do, then LAWYER UP!! If you ask them if you are under arrest, they say no, we're just asking questions, tell them you have nothing to add to the discussion. If they press you, continue to ask of you are under arrest and if not are you free to go, and then ask for an attorney.

You may have a trip delayed, but preserving your rights is FAR more important.

To the poster asking why someone would be defiant: If you're not, you can get railroaded into problems beofre you have the first damn clue what happened. Friendly questioning turns into an arrest so fast after you open your mouth you'd need a videotape replay to figure out how you got hosed. And the police are PERFECTLY FREE to use deception to gain information, that has been upheld by the courts for decades. Until you are actually under arrest, they can feed you any cock and bull story that crosses their minds.

It's a game, it's a complicated game, and once you give your identification, you are free to demand an attorney before answering ANY questions. Until then, SHUT THE HELL UP. You can thank me later.

--Paul

I still can't figure out why giving away tootsie rolls gets you questioned by a FAM. :confused: :confused:

Were you detained long enough to miss (or risk missing) your next flight or otherwise alter your schedule, or was this a 2-minute thing?

Myself, I'd put up with about 2-5 minutes worth of "friendly conversation" before considering it harassment and being what hiltonhead seems to think is "defiant." 2-5 minutes is more than enough for the FAMs to do good police work and realize I'm not a threat; anything more is probably intimidation/harassment.

While it is doubtful anything will happen, I would seriously consider filing a Privacy Act Request with ICE (who runs the FAMs) demanding to know the contents of the report so that you may correct any misinformation. They will probably deny the request, but it gives you a starting point if you start getting frequently harassed by any part of the airport security infrastructure.

Edited to add:

You might also consider sending a note to UA, reminding them of your elite status, and expressing a concern that UA FAs are tending towards excessive paranoia that is disruptive to passengers. There was a SYD flight a while back that was diverted because an FA found a barf bag that had "BOB" written on it; (s)he thought "BOB" might mean "bomb on board." :rolleyes: There was a ORD-DAY UA flight a while back diverted because a FA took too seriously a nosy-passenger's complaint that a Japanese businessman wrote the word "suicide bomb" on a private paper in his seat. (He did not brandish the paper; he later claimed he saw the word in a news article he was reading while in his seat and wrote it down because he was trying to improve his English vocabulary.) :rolleyes: Within the last few weeks we had another UA flight diverted and evacuated and a number of innocent passengers' carry-ons damaged by a bomb squad because a FA overreacted to passenger reports that another passenger had "vials of liquid" (lotion) and "wires" (laptop accessories). :rolleyes: And now you are turned over to an FAM for giving tootsie pops to a few FAs. :rolleyes:

The rate of these "paranoia incidents" seems higher for UA than for other USA airlines, and I follow such news pretty closely.

And as I'm sure you know, there is no law that denies the right of police to question someone. Interrogation is totally different. A cop can walk up and ask anyone, anything. Just as a private citizen can. That person also has the right to refuse conversation. My point was, why make a mole hill into a mountain. The FAMS asked a few innocent questions about the incident and went on their way. No harm, no foul. Your earlier post suggested defying authority just to prove a point. That point has been proven numerous times in the past. We all know that unless arrested you don't have to talk to the police. You also don't have to say good morning to your neighbor, say hello when answering your phone, or eat your vegetables. If your ever in an accident, refuse to tell the rescue squad your location..it's none of their business. Don't call the police if your home is being broken into..they have no right to be there. Use a phony address for your tax return..don't want the I.R.S. getting too cozy with us. The point is, how far do we take this before it just gets silly? If the questions are harmless and you have done nothing wrong, why not just answer and save everyone the grief? Not everyone can be a Rosa Parks, but if they insist on trying, I hope it's over a more important subject.

Have a great day all! :p

Well, now, that's not quite the true story, is it? The questions were hardly "innocent"; the FAMs were investigating, plain and simple. Then they took this person's information and wrote some sort of incident report. What happened to that report is unknown. "No harm, no foul" remains to be seen, right?

Smart people do not have unnecessary conversations with law-enforcement personnel. End of story. Do otherwise at your own risk.

Bruce

I don't think it's just coincidence that UA and its cabin crews are in a continuing and escalating fight over pensions, and that more incidents seem to happen on UA flights. If I were a senior UA FA, I suppose I'd be in a pretty foul mood right now and 'eccentric' pax would be a convenient target.

The difference of opinion here between bdschobel and hiltonhead is a perfect example of why excessive government secrecy and government hysteria is harming the authorities' ability to gather information. Bruce has a perfect right to be suspicious when asked to give personal information that will be used to compile a secret incident report against him. If the process were transparent, we wouldn't have to worry about being caught in an endless Kafka-esque airport nightmare or worse after a short conversation with a FAM or screener. The feds are shooting themselves in the foot by harassing innocent people day in and day out. Who's going to give information to any branch of a scary secretive anti-terrorism operation that makes news daily for fining people hundreds of dollars for trying to carry a cheese slicer, or for detaining people and questioning people again and again who happen to be named David Nelson?

I know that I used to be the 100% cooperative-with-authority type, but after a few experiences of being touched in a truly disgusting manner by federal anti-terrorism employees, I have changed my mind about helping this modern-day KGB do its thing.

rather than try and do multiple quotes.....

to the question as to why the giving of tootsie pops "got me questioned"

as i have for almost 2 years, once i get seated, i tell an f/a that i have a small "thank you" gift for the flight crew but i need to know how many are working-to look at it from both sides, i can see how this might "invoke concern" but this was the first time in 2 years.

i also talk with the f/a's in flight about anything from sports to their current labor situation (where i also tell them, that i support them and not ua mgmnt) and that the toosie pops also "work well on "unruly children" to throw some humor into the coversation and again, this is the first time anything ever came of it.

now as to the "am i under arrest" post-yes i am well aware of that "out"-ex g/f is an sfpd officer and told me about that but that would have only been a last resort as the conversation with the fams was very professional (held right in the jetway with the f/a present) although i was the one who volunteered to show my i/d as they didn't ask for it at all. the whole interview with fams kept focusing on "why i asked so many questions" and "we live in a different time", etc

i was on my way home so there was no worry about missing a flight and the whole conversation was maybe 10 minutes tops but it did have me looking in my rear view mirror on the drive home.

thanks for all the advice and comments and i'm gonna let it ride and see what happens-especially since i have 2 same day m/r's on 5/14 & 5/21 and a trip to las over the memorial day w/e-i'll keep you updated.

How did the FAM identify himself? Since they wear plain clothes, unless they flashed some sort of ID, how would you know this is a real FAM?

i was asked if i could stay behind after everyone got off the plane as "someone wanted to talk to me" and when they came forward, they did show their i/d and badges

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.

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.