View Poll Results: Do you agree or disagree with the action undertaken by MKEbound?
Agree
766
75.92%
Disagree
144
14.27%
Neither agree nor disagree
75
7.43%
Not sure
24
2.38%
Voters: 1009. You may not vote on this poll
I was detained at the TSA checkpoint for about 25 minutes today
Sep 27, 2006, 8:50 pm
#376
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by cme2c
Yes, but unfortunately even psychopaths make "sense" when you think of it that way.
Sep 27, 2006, 8:52 pm
#377
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Standing out due to legally-protected writing on a bag is not a basis for demanding extraordinary "screening". That is, extraordinary "screening" merely on the basis of "standing out" for reasons independent of prohibited objects (and related alarms) is harassment in the same way that an attractive woman being sent for secondary screening on the basis of "standing out" for reasons not related to prohibited objects (and related alarms) is harassment.
Tom
Sep 27, 2006, 8:53 pm
#378
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: He who dies with the most miles wins!!
Programs: WorldPerks Demoted again to SE, DL 3.1MM Hilton Diamond, SPG Gold
Posts: 11,674
Originally Posted by MKEbound
I was detained for about 25 minutes today after passing though the TSA checkpoint at MKE terminal E.
I love this forum ^ ^ ^ ^
You guys crack me up...Made my day, thanks
Last edited by Cholula; Sep 28, 2006 at 8:27 am Reason: Reduced Quoted Post To Save Bandwidth
Sep 27, 2006, 8:57 pm
#379
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by VetPsychWars
I want to know if the OP made a stink about it.
Tom
Tom
And those who know Wisconsin know how easy the "disorderly conduct" thing is tossed around.
Sep 27, 2006, 8:58 pm
#380
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Under an ORD approach path
Programs: DL PM, MM. Coffee isn't a drug, it's a vitamin.
Posts: 12,935
Originally Posted by VetPsychWars
The OP was a Class A Freaking Moron for choosing the entire wrong venue for a protest. Did he have the right to do it under the first amendment? Maybe. Was it a stupendous mistake? Almost certainly.
The OP did a minor, trivial action, and the TSA and Leos responded by shredding the constitution and attacking the FIRST amendment. How does that make the OP a moron?
How big a step is it from this to police stopping you and questioning you before the election if you are wearing a badge or sporting a bumper sticker promoting the opposition party? That's what they do in dictatorships; it should never happen in a democracy. There is NO difference in doing that with signage on your personal property in an airport and outside an airport.
Sep 27, 2006, 9:01 pm
#381
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,062
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The root of the issue is whether they did suppress or attempted to suppress his First Amendment rights. Whether it was wittingly or unwittingly done is not a root issue.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Standing out due to legally-protected writing on a bag is not a basis for demanding extraordinary "screening". That is, extraordinary "screening" merely on the basis of "standing out" for reasons independent of prohibited objects (and related alarms) is harassment in the same way that an attractive woman being sent for secondary screening on the basis of "standing out" for reasons not related to prohibited objects (and related alarms) is harassment.
Sep 27, 2006, 9:04 pm
#382
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The government's breaking the rules often enough results in legal due process and/or settlement. Hopefully we'll see that here too. And hopefully, more government employees will rediscover the Constitution or be held accountable for violating the highest law of the land.
"Class A Freaking Morons" cannot post here.
And hopefully, more government employees will rediscover the Constitution or be held accountable for violating the highest law of the land."Class A Freaking Morons" cannot post here.
As for the other, obviously they can.
What person, who has somewhere to go, goes out of his way to provoke a negative response? Clearly the OP wasn't thinking far enough in advance. If he were working for me? I would have to re-evaluate whether this was an employee I want to have.
I know that all y'all have spent many pages debating whether the TSA agent was Evil or not, but the fact remains that the OP deliberately provoked the (possiblly low-bid) officer for no other reason than for his personal amusement.
That's where I call foul.
And, that costs me a few cents in tax money, to deal with this individual.
Tom
Sep 27, 2006, 9:04 pm
#383
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A Capital City on The East Coast
Programs: CO-Dirt,SPG-Nothing,Marriott-Gold, Hilton-Blue, Hyatt-Plat, HI-Plat
Posts: 6,872
Originally Posted by VetPsychWars
You ARE joking, right?
The government and its enforcement operatives are PEOPLE. Ya know what? People apply whatever rules they think are right at the time, regardless of whether it's true.
The government and its enforcement operatives are PEOPLE. Ya know what? People apply whatever rules they think are right at the time, regardless of whether it's true.
Originally Posted by VetPsychWars
The OP was a Class A Freaking Moron for choosing the entire wrong venue for a protest. Did he have the right to do it under the first amendment? Maybe. Was it a stupendous mistake? Almost certainly.
you're joking right?????
(OT-But that's what this is about, the slow errosion of those a sacred documents.Because Amendments I, II, IV,V, and VI are slowly getting pushed deep into the mud)
Originally Posted by VetPsychWars
There is a time and a place for a protest. Calling the TSA director an idiot could well have taken place in this forum, where I am specifically calling the OP a freaking moron.
Originally Posted by VetPsychWars
For a semi-ridiculous idiocy, one does not lay oneself in the middle of a spinach patch, get run over, and shredded, in protest of the latest E. coli in spinach.
Long live E, Long Live E
Sep 27, 2006, 9:09 pm
#384
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
I've spent a good portion of my day baby-sitting this thread and, it appears, to no avail.
The thread is now closed.
__________________________
Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator
The thread is now closed.
__________________________
Cholula
Travel Safety/Security Forum Moderator
Sep 27, 2006, 10:10 pm
#385
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
I've received some off-channel communications on this thread asking that it remain open.
So I'm re-opening it and asking that those who requested this to keep the thread on topic.
Thanks....
So I'm re-opening it and asking that those who requested this to keep the thread on topic.
Thanks....
Sep 27, 2006, 10:26 pm
#386
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: Free checked in bag on UA & DL. Free icecream at Marriott checkin.
Posts: 2,862
[enTier] - posted on another thread. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...=606488&page=2
Not sure what is more hilarious
Last week I made my usual SEA ---> AUS flight. On this particular occaison, I had to carry with me a bright red Arai motorcycle helmet with mirrored visor.
Since I couldn't think of anything better to do with it, I wore it on my head. With the visor down, of course. The TSA did not like that. I got hassled at every step, despite the fact that they couldn't show me anywhere that it was prohibited to wear a helmet inside an airport, I was forced ("do you want to fly today?") to remove it to go through the metal detector, got a second screening, and got asked several times why I was wearing a helmet. My response was, "I'm concerned for my safety and I just want to feel safe" which didn't seem to be a good excuse to them -- despite that being the reason for our current security theatre.
It didn't stop when I got inside the terminal either. I had several TSA agents come up and request (though not demand) that I remove the helmet because it was making other passengers nervous. Similar questions about why I was wearing it and other intrusive questions I refused to answer. Got a similar response from the flight attendants, though it was generally a more polite and genuine request. I ultimately took it off during the flight because it was hot and uncomfortable, but wore it again in Phoenix with similar results.
I plan on bringing the helmet back with me from Austin on Monday. Perhaps it will be part of my new "travel attire".
Not sure what is more hilarious
Last week I made my usual SEA ---> AUS flight. On this particular occaison, I had to carry with me a bright red Arai motorcycle helmet with mirrored visor.
Since I couldn't think of anything better to do with it, I wore it on my head. With the visor down, of course. The TSA did not like that. I got hassled at every step, despite the fact that they couldn't show me anywhere that it was prohibited to wear a helmet inside an airport, I was forced ("do you want to fly today?") to remove it to go through the metal detector, got a second screening, and got asked several times why I was wearing a helmet. My response was, "I'm concerned for my safety and I just want to feel safe" which didn't seem to be a good excuse to them -- despite that being the reason for our current security theatre.
It didn't stop when I got inside the terminal either. I had several TSA agents come up and request (though not demand) that I remove the helmet because it was making other passengers nervous. Similar questions about why I was wearing it and other intrusive questions I refused to answer. Got a similar response from the flight attendants, though it was generally a more polite and genuine request. I ultimately took it off during the flight because it was hot and uncomfortable, but wore it again in Phoenix with similar results.
I plan on bringing the helmet back with me from Austin on Monday. Perhaps it will be part of my new "travel attire".
Sep 27, 2006, 10:28 pm
#387
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by cme2c
Agreed, it doesn't matter if a violation was deliberate or not. We disagree that it was actually a violation.
If this gets to court or results in the TSA having to pony up money in a settlement, I'd welcome that since I see this kind of a situation as a violation of the OP's First Amendment rights.
Originally Posted by cme2c
I don't think questioning someone as to what it the writing means counts as "extraordinary screening". Then as soon as he becomes argumentative, game over. Once he starts answering questions in an evasive manner he has earned the extra attention.
Last edited by GUWonder; Sep 27, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Sep 27, 2006, 10:41 pm
#388
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Under an ORD approach path
Programs: DL PM, MM. Coffee isn't a drug, it's a vitamin.
Posts: 12,935
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Evasive answers to questions about the meaning of legally-protected political writings does not justify extraordinary security "screening", including additional questioning, at airports.
On a different aspect of this topic- yes, to some degree it becomes "he said, she said" about the words voiced by the TSA'er regarding the constitution. However, are the physical actions- picking up the bag, photographing it, etc., recorded by CCTV? Even without documentation of the words, the actions should clearly tell the story.
Was the photo of the bag taken with a government owned camera (in which case, the agent is not permitted to destroy the evidence) or are they allowed to take photos with personal cameras?
(Thanks CTM for reopening this- I hope people respect the ground rules, it's an important discussion).
Sep 27, 2006, 10:49 pm
#389
Join Date: May 2003
Location: GEG
Programs: Motel 6 Club Avoir Le Cafard
Posts: 5,027
Originally Posted by Cholula
I've received some off-channel communications on this thread asking that it remain open.
So I'm re-opening it and asking that those who requested this to keep the thread on topic.
Thanks....
So I'm re-opening it and asking that those who requested this to keep the thread on topic.
Thanks....
Sep 27, 2006, 11:01 pm
#390
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by mizzou65201
Some notes from a fellow Wisconsinite:
Wisconsin has no law requiring an individual who is not operating a motor vehicle to provide identification on demand. However, (1) law enforcement almost universally requests it, which is not illegal and, more importantly here (2) since the OP was attempting to enter the sterile area, he was required to provide photo ID by a combination of federal law and the carrier's contract of carriage.
Not giving your address would be a somewhat moot point, because law enforcement in Wisconsin generally runs names through their databases only using name (last/first/MI), race, gender, and date of birth. Even though you provided your passport, that information is enough to give your Wisconsin DL #, most recent address on file with WisDOT, and your driving record and any Wisconsin criminal history.
Wisconsin has an EXTREMELY vague definition of "disorderly conduct." (DC) It is "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct, whether in a public or a private place, in circumstances where the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance." Had you gotten on the bad side of the deputy, I would not have been surprised to see you receive a DC ticket. Cops and prosecutors in Wisconsin love it because it is the perfect citation of last resort, when they want to "do something." Keep in mind the Milwaukee County DA could still decide to charge you with DC, if the sheriff refers it for prosecution. My personal opinion is that is unlikely.
For now, let's keep in mind the bigger picture here. The OP was not arrested, cited, or fined on the spot. It took 25 minutes, but so far we have the "correct" outcome. That is what the law requires. I agree the TSA employee was fully out of bounds, but unfortunately, incompetence is not yet a crime.
Wisconsin has no law requiring an individual who is not operating a motor vehicle to provide identification on demand. However, (1) law enforcement almost universally requests it, which is not illegal and, more importantly here (2) since the OP was attempting to enter the sterile area, he was required to provide photo ID by a combination of federal law and the carrier's contract of carriage.
Not giving your address would be a somewhat moot point, because law enforcement in Wisconsin generally runs names through their databases only using name (last/first/MI), race, gender, and date of birth. Even though you provided your passport, that information is enough to give your Wisconsin DL #, most recent address on file with WisDOT, and your driving record and any Wisconsin criminal history.
Wisconsin has an EXTREMELY vague definition of "disorderly conduct." (DC) It is "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct, whether in a public or a private place, in circumstances where the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance." Had you gotten on the bad side of the deputy, I would not have been surprised to see you receive a DC ticket. Cops and prosecutors in Wisconsin love it because it is the perfect citation of last resort, when they want to "do something." Keep in mind the Milwaukee County DA could still decide to charge you with DC, if the sheriff refers it for prosecution. My personal opinion is that is unlikely.
For now, let's keep in mind the bigger picture here. The OP was not arrested, cited, or fined on the spot. It took 25 minutes, but so far we have the "correct" outcome. That is what the law requires. I agree the TSA employee was fully out of bounds, but unfortunately, incompetence is not yet a crime.
This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613N.W.2d 72, 98−0931.
However, there is always a loophole...
A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal; 3) the officer observed that the suspect’s pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99−1686