Nightmare at DCA

There is no expectation of privacy at a checkpoint. The government can prohibit certain video or photos if they exposure security procedures, otherwise its a public place.

As for the other, tell me, if you go in and talk to an IRS agent regarding an audit, do fourth or fifth amendment protections attach? The answer is - it depends. If you're being deported, is there a right to an attorney? Is the TSA required to notify you of any rights if they find anything in your luggage? Nope. Only when the LEO shows up are they.

The fact is that many Bill of Rights protections only apply where criminal prosecutions are contemplated. For an example of this, INS v. Lopez-Mendoza states that the exclusionary rule doesn't apply to deportation proceedings. And isn't the exclusionary rule a result of the fourth and fifth amendments?

I know; I was just responding in a similar spirit.

You raise a serious question, but I don't think this case presents difficulty. On one extreme, we can obviously think of abusive examples of where cop says "do X or I'll arrest you" (e.g., X=sing showtunes to me for one hour).

At the other extreme, there are cases where as cop is reasonably saying, "I'll give you chance to correct your behavior, else I'll cite you" (e.g., fix that headlight by next week and I'll not write you a ticket). I think the demand to clean up the mess you just made is on this side of the spectrum.

I would imagine there a lot of reported cases on this very issue of what a cop can legally demand someone do in order to avoid citation. This isn't my area of expertise; perhaps a prosecutor or criminal defense lawyer could weigh in on this.

At the risk of nitpicking, the IRS DOES allow you to record the entire audit session on audio tape. Since I last read this, I wouldn't be surprised if this now extends to video tape.

Is this for rhetorical affect?

Post #1 of this thread answers your "how?" So what do you mean by the TSA doing (or not doing?) their job?

So I guess the question is really did the cop cross the line. At least it's looking like maybe not with the cleanup, but I think the cop pushed his luck with the "now say your sorry."

At least when I've gotten written for something like that, there's generally been some other statute that they could use or fall back on. When I got a "fix it" ticket on my honeymoon several years ago, I still got a ticket. However, there was a provision in the law that if I got it fixed (or at least made a good faith effort at the garage (ie garage said this should fix it, but it didn't and it was something else but it was getting worked on)) then the ticket would be dismissed. Otherwise, it would stand.

Likewise, when I got nailed for speeding on Memorial Day, the state trooper wrote me up for not obeying the speed limit sign rather than a straight up ticket because I didn't play dumb and I apologized. Still a "nice" fine but no points. So I understand officer discretion, but I just think this cop pushed his luck.

The thing I don't like is that the DCA cops are noted for this crap.

Oooops. Duplicate post.

From a right-of-publicity perspective, probably true.

Please cite the law that permits the government to prohibit photography in public.

All state actors, including administrative agencies, must comply with the Constitution. Saying otherwise suggests that you don't understand the nature of our Constitutional government. I've explained this here before, but I'll go through it one more time because "law dawg" suggests that you're a LEO and, if so, it's important that you understand.

Ours is a government of limited powers, meaning that, at formation, only those powers expressly ceded to the government are available to it. This is very different from most national governments in that the source of all powers is, usually, "the sovereign" or "the state" who is free to dispense and dispose rights and powers as it chooses. The Bill of Rights is an iteration of those rights that were, specifically, never ceded to the federal government (and, through the 14th Amendment, to the states). When the government, i.e. any state actor, trespasses on a protected right, it usurps power that it does not have and acts as a tyrant.

This limitation of power applies to every state actor, i.e. adminsitrative agencies, as well as LEOs.

Wrong. The Bill of Rights (which does not grant protections, but restricts government power) applies to every state action.

Right on the exclusionary rule resulting from the 4th and 5th Amendment. Wrong on the rationale of the case. Per the Supremes (and I don't necessarily agree), deportation doesn't implicate any reserved right:

"A deportation proceeding is a purely civil action to determine eligibility to remain in this country, not to punish an unlawful entry. . . In many deportation cases the INS must show only identity and alienage; the burden then shifts to the respondent to prove the time, place, and manner of his entry. . .The "body" or identity of a defendant or respondent in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful arrest, even if it is conceded that an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation occurred. . .In short, a deportation hearing is intended to provide a streamlined determination of eligibility to remain in this country, nothing more. The purpose of deportation is not to punish past transgressions but rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws."

Where's the sound on the tape to prove that the cop actually said that?

It's only been said that that's what was said. Of course, for some reason, TSA didn't release the audio (I think there was probably something damaging to its position in it or they would have), so it's he said/she said.

Knowing DCA cops, I'd err on her side at least in that part.

Who said this? Emmerson? After all that this video is shown I dont know how (if she made that comment) that I could be believed.

The type of video that was shown doesnt have audio so unless they record audio separately they wouldnt have had audio. You comments on the audio make it sound like some big conspiracy theory ...

I believe Bart answered this one already in another thread.

So your position is that civil and criminal actions contain no substantive differences as regards to the Bill of Rights? I'd argue that, as most civil/administrative actions don't require things like Miranda rights, even when being served.

Yes and no. It does, but under very different guidelines. Perhaps I was being imprecise earlier, but there are substantive differences.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar...cId=5000544666

Think this is going to expand?

And,

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_491/

"On administrative appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the orders noting that deportation proceedings are civil actions and "[t]he mere fact of an illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent deportation hearing." The BIA also found application of the exclusionary rule in a deportation proceeding inappropriate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed finding the respondents' arrests were illegal and the resulting admissions fruit of unlawful arrests.

Question

Do the strictures of the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule apply in deportation proceedings?

Conclusion

No."

Emphasis mine.

Exactly how would unarmed law enforcement "get preferential treatment"


Oh, sure; teachers are exempt from tickets. So are milk truck drivers, vegetable salesmen and little green men from Mars.

If uniformed Secret Service officers are "nothing more than armed security guards," what does that make TSO screeners?

For your perusal, here is a list of duties for a uniformed Secret Service officer:

The Countersniper Support Unit (CS): Created in 1971, the CS unit's purpose is to provide specialized protective support to defend against long-range threats to Secret Service protectees. Today CS is an operational element of the Presidential Protective Division.

The Canine Explosives Detection Unit (K-9): Created in 1976, the mission of the K-9 unit is to provide skilled and specialized explosives detection support to protective efforts involving Secret Service protectees.

The Emergency Response Team (ERT): Formed in 1992, ERT's primary mission is to provide tactical response to unlawful intrusions and other protective challenges related to the White House and its grounds. ERT personnel receive specialized, advanced training and must maintain a high level of physical and operational proficiency.

Magnetometers: The Secret Service began relying on magnetometer (metal detector) support by Uniformed Division officers to augment its protective efforts away from the White House following the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan. The Magnetometer Support Unit's mission is to ensure that all persons entering secure areas occupied by Secret Service protectees are unarmed.

And TSA is a trustworthy source?

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think she embellished a bit, but that doesn't mean that those things couldn't be said.

Come on now. You don't think they'd be recording sound at the checkpoing for someone making terroristic threats? With as paranoid as TSA is?

Security can record audio. I know at DEN there are signs up in the concourse saying that speech is monitored.

Not a conspiracy theory. Just the fact that TSA usually isn't forthcoming with information unless it suits them.

Channel 5 in DC just did an segment on this on the news. (Channel 5 is Fox).

In the story, there were a couple of women interviewed who were sympathetic to the mother after seeing the video.

But the telling part was the statement by TSA: "Be careful at the checkpoints, because YOU may end up on our mythbusters website". I call it a threat.

I don't know what else to call it.

I think a lot of their so called "threats" should end up on that site.