FWAAA

It's your belief that the Burbank Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority is not a unit of government? Is that your final answer?

You sure 'bout that?

Lockheed sold the airport in 1978. So up until 28 years ago, it was privately owned.

Thanks for the list - I'll scan it.

etch5895

According to this, DFW and BNA are both owned (or titled to) other. There are hundreds of privately owned, public use airports around. Granted, you probably won't see large commercial operations there, but they are still privatly owned airports.

FWAAA

I think what we have here is a lack of understanding about how cities and counties can collaborate and form multi-jurisdictional airport authorities under their respective state laws and how those airport authorities are just as much "government" as the underlying cities or counties.

DFW and BNA are not privately owned.

My question above was whether any of the 429 USA airports where screening is conducted are privately owned. So far, no evidence has been presented to refute the preliminary conclusion that the answer is "none."

ND Sol

Now we are going OT, but according to BUR's website it is not privately owned: "The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority is a separate government agency created under a joint powers agreement between the three cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena in 1977 for the sole purpose of owning and operating the Bob Hope Airport. The Authority consists of nine commissioners, three from each city. The commissioners from each city are appointed by their city council."

However, SWF is privately-owned in that the company has a 99-year lease. In the real estate world, that's really the equivalent of ownership.

"Stewart International Airport is the nation's first privatized commercial airport and operates under a 99-year lease agreement with the New York State Department of Transportation. National Express Group operates Stewart International Airport and is the United State's subsidiary of the National Express Group, PLC, in the United Kingdom."

kuerious

Just so you know, TSA was created because of the "9/11" event; before then only local security agencies performed the work. See here in case you don't believe me, or didn't realize this.
You may want to be careful about what you post, i.e. saying what an "intelligent terrorist" would do. I'm placing no blame, but programs such as the FBI's CARNIVORE and Magic Lantern, UKUSA's Echelon, and DARPA's T.I.A. (Total Information Awareness) (all now, in later days, replaced by "commercially available software") have the potential to come across and flag this thread, and even your account. I don't know how, or if they will, but its always better to be made aware. Just trying to offer advice.
The shoe x-raying has already been found to be useless. You can, in fact, politely decline to remove your shoes, and the TSA agent can, in fact, ask you to sit, then use a cotton swab\patch on your shoe's surfaces to be put into a machine to test for residue AND swipe your feet and person with a metal detector. (Just imagine how many people walk on those mats your now-sweaty or -bare feet have to now touch.) Despite all this, though, fear-breeding officials and media outlets will still have you believe that officials and random US citizens actually think its a good idea. Terribly sad, if you ask me, when we can't even keep our shoes on. What next, some terrorist straps something horrible to his naked skin, and now strip searches are mandatory? Or they swallow some sort of horrible thing, and now x-rays are mandatory, with secondary searches being a gastroscopy/colonoscopy? Come on, people, take back OUR rights!

JohnneeO

If Kip Hawley is an idiot, it takes one to know one. As the OP indicated in Post # 124, this is not the first time he/she has tried to express an opinion about the TSA in an inappropriate forum (i.e., complaining in person). "Look at me! I want attention! Read my Bag!" Not a surprise that he/she provokes a TSA employee. Not a surprise that he/she comes crying to FT for more attention. And now the AP wants to give the OP even more attention?

I do not condone how the TSA supervisor handled the situation. He was looking for trouble, and he found it. But if you keep playing with fire as the OP has done, you're going to get burned.

Will the OP ever take responsibility for what he/she did? It takes two to tango......

GUWonder

The airport owner/operator in MKE didn't directly hassle the OP for exercising their First Amendment rights in a legal way. It was the TSA (and the local LEO) presence that led that one.

Plugh

Odd. My wife was arrested for exactly this. She was told during the arrest that it was unlawful to be in public without ID. She was accosted by police while lugging bags of groceries in her arms while heading home from the grocery store. She told them who she was, where she lived, where she was going, and where she had come from. This was not enough to satisfy Arizona law.

FWAAA

Until this post. :-:

I'll concede that a 99 year lease with a New York State agency is essentially privately owned.

Still, the tenant breaches their lease the landlord probably retakes possession. So could SWF enact (and get away with) behavior codes that wouldn't be constitutional if enacted by a state, city or county government?

red456

I believe this to be the law in CA also - at least the state leg. was trying to get it pushed through when I lived there.

My reaction was no way in hell was I going to carry ID to walk my dog; that's nothing more than "papers, please."

When did this happen, Plugh?

FWAAA

Your wife's experience sounds an awful lot like "Walking While Wrong Color/Race/Nationality, Etc"

davidcalgary29

With respect, I don't believe that this is correct law. Police officers can and do have the power (both under the common law and statute) to briefly detain individuals for investigative purposes if they have probable grounds to do so. One example: officer X suspects that Y is in breach of his probation order, and asks for ID when he sees him past his curfew date. Y provides ID, Officer X confirms the current probation order, and charges him with a breach. I'd never get convictions if Courts routinely threw out the initial investigation.

Too much of an oversimplification. Items obtained from more invasive searches are regularly deemed to be admissible if police had probable grounds to believe that you're carrying contraband. A typical example: X is charged with a driving offence. When he is writing the violation ticket, Officer Z notes that X's car smells like pot. He sees a bulge in X's right front pocket which could be a baggie. He then asks X to empty his pockets, and X then produces a baggie. That baggie *may* be admissible at trial.

You can't be arrested for this in most jurisdictions -- just issued with a violation ticket.

...which must be correct (the provision of false information may be an arrestable offence)

I take no issue with the rest of your post, but just wish to use it to comment on a claim that I've seen over and over in this thread -- that "freedom of speech" is limited in certain situations. The issue isn't what types of form of expression should be allowed, but rather whether or not it's justifiable to limit certain types of expression because of a certain context. In other words, the right of an individual to express him or self is absolute, and any limitation of that expression, which will be a prima facie infringement of that very basic right, will only be allowed if it's deemed to be in the greater public good. The "fire in a crowded cinema" example is one of a very few types of expression which are held to be a prima facie criminal act (because of the potential danger to the public), and are not analogous to the OP's written comment.

gbeer424

is one of the best and most intelligent posts in flyertalk history and we should all fear the day we are treated like the OP. what is this 1930??

cme2c

Um, that was my point. GUWonder said they should be looking for bombs. My point was you don't just look for bombs (or look for weapons) you look at everything.

GUWonder

That claim makes no sense, although it makes for cute rhetoric the sort of which we expect to hear when visiting a daycare center.

That is, an idiot cannot reliably identify an idiot, due to limitations of the idiot's mental faculties, while a genius or any other reasonable person of average intelligence or above probably has a better ability to identify idiots, fools and useful/useless political hacks than an idiot.

We hav

The OP in his capacity as a private citizen cannot violate my First Amendment rights and that of future generations of Americans in the way that government employees can. To equate a private citizen's constitutionally-protected expression of political opinion with a government crackdown on freedom of constitutionally-protected expression of political opinion defies all reason. That kind of equivalency is akin to claiming that the individual victims of terrorism are to blame for their being murdered and maimed by terrorists.