LEO Requesting ID at Security Checkpoints
 

After reading several posts in this forum about law enforcement officers attending to airport security checkpoint calls, usually when a passenger asks to see a supervisor or to file a complaint, I have the uncomfortable impression that LEOs are sometimes used as a tool to intimidate.

My question is if a law enforcement officer demands ID at an airport security checkpoint, and it is clear that I am not under arrest, may I refuse to provide ID? I understand some states have "stop and identify" laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes), what about in those jurisdictions that do not?

I am not very familiar with American laws and practices on this matter, perhaps the more informed could educate, thanks.

no, that is the only time you are required to present your i/d. if a leo (police officer, custom's officer, fbi agent, etc) asks, you have to show it but so do they. they are req'd to identify themselves and you have the right to record their i/d info

And if the LEO records / retains your info, I suspect he or she should be required under the Privacy Act to make disclosures as to the purpose and duration of such retention, etc.

The problem comes when the LEOs pass that info on to the TSA, who is notoriously bad for not following the Privacy Act's requirements (usually under claims of "SSI" etc.) IMHO the LEOs have no business making that handoff, and indeed most do not, but when they do... who knows what the TSA does with it?

Far too simple an 'answer'.

A Federal LEO may demand ID on federal property (which includes federally-controlled areas such as customs halls etc.). Otherwise there is no Federal statute requiring anyone anywhere else to identify themselves on demand.

There are, however, individual state laws. Nevada for example has a stop-and-identify statute but even that requires only that you identify yourself verbally; it does not require you to produce proof. But of course you will likely be detained until you do so, and the police will have no qualms about the legality of such a detention.

Read the Hiibel case for further instruction: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html , although unless you are also prepared to mount a court challenge, the practical answer in airports is yes, show the ***** your ID otherwise you will miss your flight.

Sad, and only going to get sadder :(

I probably missed it, but when/how did we learn that the TSA claims SSI in not following the Privacy Act requirements?

IANAL or even an expert, but my understanding is that there is no requirement in any (civilian) jurisdiction in the USA to carry any sort of identification papers unless you are engaging in an activity that requires a license (driving, hunting, fishing, piloting a plane, etc.). And we even know that ID papers are not required by the government to fly as a passenger, in spite of misleading statements made to the contrary.

So I have never understood the logic of a LEO being able to demand you show ID papers. If you are not required to carry them, how come you are penalized for choosing to do so? (There are stories of LEOs getting upset about people declining to produce ID and using that to justify a pat-down where they extract your wallet and the enclosed ID. Also stories of declining to produce ID when you are carrying it leading to arrests and charges for "obstruction.")

It seems we're only a heartbeat away from Congress amending RealID to require that everyone over 16 carry a RealID (or a foreign passport) at all times and present it upon request by any government agent. I even fear that today's courts would uphold such a requirement, somehow forgetting how close that brings us to being a police state (and/or the GDR or USSR).

But we're not there yet. However, it seems a lot of people (government and civilian) think such requirements already exist.

I'd have to dig for the posts, but it's been reported here, certainly, from various posters' personal experience.

The TSA's own site claims they are subject to the Privacy Act, but individual screeners seem quite averse to any sort of compliance, IME. And the statement on the TSA site is full of weasel words, like "will provide you with notice of the collection in appropriate circumstances" (emphasis mine), so YMMV as to their actual compliance.

They do have some exemptions from the Privacy Act defined, as from their FAQs:

They mention the Federal Information Security Management Act but not the Federal Privacy Act of 1974.

The TSA claimed exemption from some Privacy Act reporting requirements, but they are NOT exempt from data collection disclosure requirements. Others and I have posted these requirements from time to time.

The Privacy Act states that government agencies must identify and describe a "system of records" into which they enter Privacy Act-protected information. The TSA did identify a couple of systems of records in its documentation.

So, if a screeners demands your ID and records your personal information, he/she can be breaking the law in three areas.

1. Failure to provide you with a written disclosure statement before taking your information -- This is the most common way screeners break the law on a daily basis.
2. Failure to record your personal information in an approved system of records -- Screeners break this part of the law when they record your personal information on an unapproved data base (like those supervisors who claim they have to make a copy of a DL of every person who wants a complaint form). Simply copying your DL is also a violation.
3. Failure to properly protect your personal information as the description of the system of records and the National Archives require. -- Screeners break the law when they leave the lists and logbooks with privacy information in unsecure locations.

The Privacy Act allows for fines and jail time for individual government employees who violate the Privacy Act.

The cop who demands your ID in response to a screener/supervisor must follow the same rules, except that they have an exemption from the disclosure requirement in the case of an "on-going" investigation. Other statutes such as Terry govern these circumstances.

The cop who takes your license and gives it directly to the screener has just broke the law. One of the Privacy Act requirements is that the agency must disclose uses of your data, including other systems of records into which they can share your information. So, the act of handing your license or other ID from cop to screener constitutes a transfer of Privacy Act-protected information from one system of records (the police department) to the TSA. If it's not documented that this is permitted, the cop and the screener can be personally fined or thrown in jail.

What steps can we, the common people, take to have these laws enforced?

Thanks for the explanation, FliesWay2Much, followed by a great question from PoliceStateSurvivor.

And a majority of LEOs - browse forums.officer.com if you think I'm overstating it. "See some ID" has been their standard opening gambit for decades, but a time-established convention should not be construed as a de facto law. They count on few people knowing Terry, Hiibel or any of the other cases cited above.

The DHS IG body-slammed the entire DHS in a report last year for flagrant and recurring disregard for the Privacy Act. I suggest you contact the DHS IG's office every time you are a victim of Privacy Act-protected information theft by a TSA employee. Make sure you get name & badge number and cite which part(s) of the Act you believe the individual broke. DHS IG Hotline

The TSA does have a Privacy Office and a Statutory (meaning Congress directed the DHS to have one who reports to Congress directly). They have a web page devoted to privacy and their privacy policy. Note that they only did this after the TSA idiot lost all the personnel information on thousands of TSA employees. So, their privacy practices don't have anything to do with us -- it's all about them.

Note this letter: Action Memo -- June 2007. Towards the bottom is a person's name, email address, and office phone number in the DHS Privacy Office. Drop her a line with your concerns and see how far you get!

airports are federal federal property (or quasi-federal property as the land may be owned by the city and/or county) but most leo's at the airport are local leo's assigned to the airport division. how would that fall under what you just said-i can understand a customs officer but what about a "plane" old cop working at the airport? :confused:

After seeing so many stories of intimidation, I am often struck by people accusing fellow FTers as telling the story "one sided." Another common response by authorities after the fact is to say the the person was disgruntled or making a scene (like MKEbound and the Kip Hawley bag).

So... here's my question: can you record all this as it goes down?

My phone can record some high-quality video. 320x240 @30fps. I have plenty of space too: 8GB micro-SD card. The battery would probably die before the card filled up.

Of course, I'm not an idiot. I'm sure if I started videotaping a TSA employee the minute they started questioning me, they would flip out, claim I cannot do it, try to take my phone away. I'm sure a LEO would have the same reaction. So while a reasonable person would expect this as their de facto response, that doesn't mean it is the correct or legal response.

So, with regard to TSA:
-Can you videotape them?
-Can you just record audio?
-Can they legally ask/make you stop?
-If the above is "yes," can they then confiscate the recording?

With regard to LEO at a TSA checkpoint:
-Can you videotape them?
-Can you just record audio?
-Can they legally ask/make you stop?
-If the above is "yes," can they then confiscate the recording?

There are laws and there are the whims of a particular screener. My suggestions and opinions are mostly based on non-lawyer observations:


I don't believe you have to tell them you are taping them. If I recall, a lot of the Rodney King footage came from a bystander whom wasn't noticed by the cops. If the cameraman had been doing anything improper, you would think that the judge would have thrown out the evidence of the videotape.

There was a pretty famous incident near St. Louis a few years ago. A 19 year-old kid was so tired of being pulled over and harassed by the local cops that he bought a camera for his own car. He taped a blatant incident of police harassment -- video and audio. The cop got fired and, I think, got some jail time. There were links to cop forum web pages, and most of the conversation revolved around how much the other cops wanted to torture and draw & quarter the guy.

So, I could be totally wrong, but my guess is that it's legal but the TSA and the cops would intimidate the daylights out of you. Fortunately, the kid in St. Louis had the guts to go through with it.

If you dig further, they do specifically mention the Privacy Act in several places throughout their privacy section (which is what I linked to). Again, how well they follow that and to what degree they exempt themselves from it... well, that's another story entirely.

IIRC, the department in question also tried to claim the officer's own camera footage was unavailable for some reason.

According to this article, the teen in question had not only gotten an inappropriate traffic ticket previously (the reason he cited for having installed the camera), but had actually received death threats on an online forum frequented by the STL cops. :eek:

:eek:



Indeed, he received a lot of intimidation, with officers publically making statements that they wanted to "tow the car and take the kid to jail," etc.

The only problem with taping at a TSA checkpoint, IMHO, would be the claim (valid or not) that it's against the rules due to the potential to capture and then disclose SSI.

More on-topic, there have been other recent cases where LEOs have reacted poorly when discovering they're being recorded. Wasn't there a guy taping an inappropriately-conducted arrest in 2007 at some point who was himself threatened and arrested for doing so? Can't recall the details yet...

... but the salient point here is that if you record the encounter, it will likely escalate things to the point where the LEOs totally side with the TSA and will end up running you in. Assuming your recording isn't destroyed and you keep your cool throughout the encounter, you'd have grounds to pursue action afterwards, if you don't mind the disruption to your trip and the arrest, etc.

Local laws vary. In Florida, it is against the law to audiotape anyone without their consent. Video is okay, however. It's an interpretation of a wiretapping statute, if I remember correctly.

IANAL2, but I would say that a local (non-federal) LEO approaching you in an airport would need a Terry-type (reasonable and articulable) justification unless you are in flagrante delicto. Simply standing in a line-up prior to a TSA checkpoint ought not to qualify as either.

Upset a screener to the point where he/she calls a LEO and you can bet that the situation will have been exaggerated to the extent that the cop can claim to "reasonably believe" a crime/misdemeanor is being or is about to be committed.

We have seen some examples where the LEO has blown off the screener(s), but those are few and far between. As I wrote before, they count on nobody being willing to pursue the question of whether they are acting legallly or not. And that's exactly what happens 99.99% of the time - stand up to them and they'll ruin your day.

Airports are not Federal property. The Federal government 'owns' the areas where it can conduct immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections, and it can 'own' certain airport items like the Control Tower, operating surfaces and navigation aids (either directly, or by regulatory control) - but the airport property and buildings, including the terminal space, are owned by the state, county or municipality or other operating organization which runs the airport.

Any local LEO or the TSA claiming the airport terminal is a 'federal building' is smoking something.

What to I tell them at DCA?

That's why concessions renting space in the airport must follow local and state regulations relating to alcohol service, etc., in addition to the federal regulations associated with airports.

From the MWAA website:

The Federal Government transferred both DCA and IAD to the MWAA (Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority) for a 50 year lease under Title VI of Public Law 99-500 in 1986.

The LEOs at both airports are certified by the state of Virginia.

Yeah, if you stopped by the SKL in SFO last fall, you found out the hard way! :eek:

I don't believe DCA is considered federal property or a federal building, despite being built by the feds. It's located in Virginia and run by the MWAA, which was created by VA and DC jointly. Apparently, prior to the establishment of the MWAA, both airports were operated by the feds, and IAD was on land in VA acquired by the feds... but court cases held they are "in" VA for practically every purpose, as do federal regulations. And the LEOs involved, outside the MWAA cops, are for the local jurisdictions (Arlington County for DCA).

Exactly...MWAA is the owner and operator of record, therefore they are the current owner of the terminal space. It is not federal property, nor is the terminal a federal building.

Good to know!

I've considered ways to record "encounters" with TSA as well.

Right now I think my approach would be to calmly pull out my phone, start the voice recording and then state the following:

"This is ------my name--------. It is xxx o'clock on --date--. I am at ---terminal / airport ---. With me are --- names of TSA and LEOs present ---.

Gentlemen do any of you object to a recording of this conversation in order to preserve an accurate record?"

If anyone objects I will cease recording but at least I will have them telling me not to record on record. If things go badly after that I would hope any impartial reviewer would have to question why one party wanted an accurate record kept and the other party didn't. Of course, that assumes that any reviewer would actually be impartial.

What are the cops like at DCA? Do they tend to take the TSA's side, be neutral, or do they just pooh-pooh minor TSA "concerns" (read: tattling)? I tend to fly DCA, but never seen a police officer and TSA actually work together.

Pour yourself a stiff drink, and read this: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=733782