Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Nov 16, 2009, 10:19 am
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Mike
Nov 16, 2009, 10:45 am
#32
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
After Mr. Mocek was detained, “[Police] asked if he was with anyone, and he indicated he was flying with Jesse,” said Mr. Livingston. “The police told Jesse he would also be arrested if he did not leave the compound. They demanded and received Jesse’s ID, then drove him in a police cruiser off the airport property, where they informed him that he was banned from the property for 24 hours.
Nov 16, 2009, 11:18 am
#33
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
There's a world of difference between seeking to enter the USA from outside the USA (where the real officers of the CBP demand passports as a condition of passing thru their checkpoint) and boarding an airplane. I can see the argument that flying from Dallas to Houston should be possible without facing a "papers please" demand from a federal employee. Maybe it should even be possible when boarding an airplane in LAX or JFK or BOS when flying to a foreign country.
Nov 16, 2009, 11:22 am
#34
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: ewr,swf,fll
Posts: 835
Who's peace was he disturbing? He can't disturb the TSO's peace and he can't disturb the cop's peace.
If his video shows that he was not acting out of hand then they have nothing.
What concerns me is his partner that by the account I read was not doing ANYTHING, was seized by the police, and removed from public property for knowing Phil.
Sounds to me like a 1st & 4th Amendment violation.
If his video shows that he was not acting out of hand then they have nothing.
What concerns me is his partner that by the account I read was not doing ANYTHING, was seized by the police, and removed from public property for knowing Phil.
Sounds to me like a 1st & 4th Amendment violation.
Nov 16, 2009, 11:25 am
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: An NPR mind living in a Fox News world
Posts: 14,165
Please Don't Compromise Your Future Legal Actions Here on FT!
Phil -- It's pretty obvious and folks have stated this before, but, in the heat of battle when you're a free citizen again, please don't compromise the integrity of any legal action you plan to take by blabbing about it here on FT or on any other public blog. Heck, don't even talk about the incident on any medium which could be used against you. Lots of us are pulling for you.
As much as we want to know the gory details down to the color of the cop's eyebrows, please resist the temptation. I'm torn about going public with the video your companion was able to take before being detained himself. I would certainly make sure you have a duplicate copy of it. If you decide to post it on Youtube or somewhere else, I would let the record stand and don't include any commentary beyond time, date, place, etc. Chances are good that PV will provide all sorts of opportunity for people to vent on the incident.
If anyone on FT has a closer relationship with Phil, perhaps some reinforcing via PM would be appropriate.
As much as we want to know the gory details down to the color of the cop's eyebrows, please resist the temptation. I'm torn about going public with the video your companion was able to take before being detained himself. I would certainly make sure you have a duplicate copy of it. If you decide to post it on Youtube or somewhere else, I would let the record stand and don't include any commentary beyond time, date, place, etc. Chances are good that PV will provide all sorts of opportunity for people to vent on the incident.
If anyone on FT has a closer relationship with Phil, perhaps some reinforcing via PM would be appropriate.
Nov 16, 2009, 11:53 am
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,100
Not even needed.
Consider the following scenario.
Bad Guy has Good Buddy purchase ticket with Good Buddy’s legitimate ID.
Bad Guy prints two boarding passes, one with Good Buddy's name, and a forged one with Bad Guy's name (again, done by his 12 year old daughter in PowerPoint.)
Bad Guy walks through TSA security with his own personal ID, and forged Bad Guy Boarding Pass. TSA never checks his name against any security list, stares at his ID, sees it matches his boarding pass, and blesses it as good.
Bad Guy is now in the secure area and is free to board the plane. Repeat at jetway smurf check if needed.
Any other questions?
TSA actually thinks the Bad Guys can't figure this out???
Consider the following scenario.
Bad Guy has Good Buddy purchase ticket with Good Buddy’s legitimate ID.
Bad Guy prints two boarding passes, one with Good Buddy's name, and a forged one with Bad Guy's name (again, done by his 12 year old daughter in PowerPoint.)
Bad Guy walks through TSA security with his own personal ID, and forged Bad Guy Boarding Pass. TSA never checks his name against any security list, stares at his ID, sees it matches his boarding pass, and blesses it as good.
Bad Guy is now in the secure area and is free to board the plane. Repeat at jetway smurf check if needed.
Any other questions?
TSA actually thinks the Bad Guys can't figure this out???
11 states will issue a DL to people in the country without papers.
Have a refundable ticket purchased in the name desired. If the transaction goes through get a refund then go get a DL in that name.
You now have a legal DL and know inSecurePass will not be a roadblock.
Nov 16, 2009, 12:33 pm
#38
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 684
This should be interesting. Just like Bierfeldt he's got documentation that is unbiased, in this case video. Which will probably show the TSO's and the police to be causing a scene while he is reasonable at all times. I'm not even sure how the police will be able to justify in court banning the other person from the airport for 24 hours if they were doing nothing.
And Phil, please be careful about posting anything on line. As much as I would love to see all the details I don't want it to affect your court case.
And Phil, please be careful about posting anything on line. As much as I would love to see all the details I don't want it to affect your court case.
Nov 16, 2009, 12:52 pm
#39
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: FLL
Posts: 393
"Disturbing the peace" is a catch-all that officers use when they don't have a legiitmate reason to arrest.
The good news is that it's highly, highly unikely to stick. The bad news is that, given the sweeping immunity from being sued that police and governments have, it's unlikely that he can collect anything from it.
Saw someone say the other day (on a blog I frequent) that when the government decides to screw with you, there are only two possible outcomes for an individual: Defeat, or pyrrhic victory. Sad but true.
The good news is that it's highly, highly unikely to stick. The bad news is that, given the sweeping immunity from being sued that police and governments have, it's unlikely that he can collect anything from it.
Saw someone say the other day (on a blog I frequent) that when the government decides to screw with you, there are only two possible outcomes for an individual: Defeat, or pyrrhic victory. Sad but true.
Nov 16, 2009, 1:45 pm
#41
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Me too.
Not only this, TSA seems to be pretty stupid targeting someone who's a known noisemaker. Shouldn't be too hard to spin that TSA knows who he is and targeted him since he's been in the news before and is a well known poster on PV.
Anyone post to PV asking Blogdad Bob what happened?
Not only this, TSA seems to be pretty stupid targeting someone who's a known noisemaker. Shouldn't be too hard to spin that TSA knows who he is and targeted him since he's been in the news before and is a well known poster on PV.
Anyone post to PV asking Blogdad Bob what happened?
Last edited by Superguy; Nov 16, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Nov 16, 2009, 2:34 pm
#43
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 8,956
Update on the site is that Phil's being held for $1000 bail. That said, he hasn't yet appeared on the jail's inmate list as far as I can tell.
He is being charged with “concealing identity, disorderly conduct, refusing to obey an officer, and criminal trespass.”
30-22-3. Concealing identity.
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
If what is said on the blog is true, I admire Phil for doing this. They threw everything against him it would appear to see what will stick.
Last edited by ND Sol; Nov 16, 2009 at 2:57 pm Reason: Added New Mexico statute
Nov 16, 2009, 2:40 pm
#44
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,351
"Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
Nov 16th, 2009 by sherri
Today a traveler going through the Albuquerque airport was detained and is reportedly in the process of arrest after politely refusing to show his ID. Phil Mocek, a Seattle area native, was traveling with his friend Jesse Gallagos when he politely declined to show ID to TSA agents."
Full piece here:
http://philosecurity.org/2009/11/16/...ing-to-show-id
From the name and links I'm guessing that this is the same pmocek that posts here on FT in this very forum.
Anyone have any updates?
Nov 16th, 2009 by sherri
Today a traveler going through the Albuquerque airport was detained and is reportedly in the process of arrest after politely refusing to show his ID. Phil Mocek, a Seattle area native, was traveling with his friend Jesse Gallagos when he politely declined to show ID to TSA agents."
Full piece here:
http://philosecurity.org/2009/11/16/...ing-to-show-id
From the name and links I'm guessing that this is the same pmocek that posts here on FT in this very forum.
Anyone have any updates?
It's Mosack according to the website.
Also, look here:
http://www.bernco.gov/upload/images/...0&bo=130573629
Disgraceful. Where do we send our contributions, again?
Nov 16, 2009, 2:53 pm
#45
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: PBI
Programs: DL 2.8 MM/PM, AA MM/GLD, Marriott LT Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,746
Quote:
30-22-3. Concealing identity.
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
30-22-3. Concealing identity.
Concealing identity consists of concealing one's true name or identity, or disguising oneself with intent to obstruct the due execution of the law or with intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer or any other person in a legal performance of his duty or the exercise of his rights under the laws of the United States or of this state.
Whoever commits concealing identity is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.