I'd suggest that we all consider sending Mr. Rockwell some email regarding our feelings about his comments. I think it might also be worth sending to the local paper out there (and in other places) with an editorial letter suggesting that those who are charged with protecting us and knowing the law are more concerned about being "baited" into something than about upholding the law and letting a citizen know what he can and can't do.

Sounds like Rockwell is planning to be the next FSD.:rolleyes:

Speaking of that, I see that TSA is looking for an FSD for IAD. I was thinking about applying for the position. If I were to get it, I'd guarantee that the Porn-O-Graphs at IAD would always be out of service for one reason or another (once they get them there, that is). Hmm... I guess that last bit is something I should probably refrain from mentioning, should I be called in for an interview... :D

As a former Airport LEO (MCI) the only issues we ever had were folks taking pics of the screening process.

Other than that, I didn't give to craps.....and took pics all the time when I was doing flightline security....

Further, had a Airline employee told me to stop (as in the OP's case) there would have been some choice words said to him and I would have told the dude to get bent or I was calling the Airport LEOs....

CMH Police Chief dodges questions, refers me back to TSA (whose referral led to him)
 

By "issues" did you mean problems? If so, could you please tell us what the problems were and what happened as a result of those problems?


CMH police chief dodges questions, refers me back to TSA (whose referral led to him)

Further discussion with staff at Port Columbus International Airport (CMH):

See also: earlier discussion on FlyerTalk:

1. April 2009 contact with CMH via TSA's "Got Feedback?" upon suggestion of TSA Blog staff
2. June 2010 followup to April 2009 e-mail from CMH Public Safety Manger
3. CMH Public Safety Manager suggests calling police if CMH staff threaten re: photography
4. CMH Police Chief mistakenly e-mails me, warns staff I may "bait them" into misconduct

After five days without a response to my previous e-mail (#4 above), I wrote again:

Port Columbus Interantional Airport Police Chief John Rockwell responded:

Note that it was TSA who referred me to John Dipaola (TSA Stakeholder-Customer Support Manager at CMH), and that Mr. Dipaola referred me to Robert Mauldin, CMH Public Safety Manager, who was advised by CMH Police Chief John Rockwell to discontinue his communication with me.

As Mr. Rockwell did not answer any of my questions, I responded by asking them again:

see also: further discussion with CMH staff

Was there a local or other law that made photography of the screening process illegal?

This was several years ago, so who knows what is in place now.

But back then, we were instructed by our LE Manangement that if we saw/TSA saw folks taking pictures of the screening processes, we were to ask them to delete the pics.

No clue where/who that came from.

9/10 times TSA would call us because they had no people skills and ended up pissing the folks off. We'd show up, chat to them nicely, and they would delete.

Hell, I ended up taking pics of folks a few times so they could get the whole family in..... TSA would go insane......but knew better.... :D

Since then, MCI did do some stuff so you can't see the process any more....or at least at some of the gates I fly in/out of....

And for the record, when I saw TSA at MCI, I mean the Contractored Security. Only folks TSA there are Screening Managers and above. Actual screeners are Contracted. Just easier to say TSA.

We were told by Management it was Federal Law that you couldn't take pics of the screening process and the newly formed TSA wanted us to help them out..... They way our Management was at the time, it was best to do it....and just be done with it....but use your head.

We never/nor have they ever arrested anyone or taken anyone to jail for that..... We always asked the person to zap the pics on their sticks and that was that.

If I had someone with a film camera, I let them keep the pics.... and made my guys/gals do the same. There was no way in the world that I was going to make some old couple from rural KS/MO sending their kid/grandkid off to war or on the vacation of a lifetime ......and make them destroy entire rolls of film.... Not happening on my watch.......

Luckily enough, all the ones I dealt with had digtial cameras (Thank God)......

As far as I know, while I worked there, no one made folks destroy film.....but I am sure some dope did.....or has since then.....

I'm curious about something, and since you have some LE experience you might be able to answer. Did you ever run into someone who flat out refused your request, or didn't let you see their camera, or stated that they weren't taking any pictures? How would that have been handled?

I'm specifically thinking about someone's Fourth Amendment rights here, and how (or if) that might come into play. Realizing that you're not a lawyer, I'll leave the whole legal discussion angle out and just focus on the law enforcement side of it. (I'm sure one of our resident lawyers will also jump in and probably offer a bevy of links and advice as well, as we've got some smart folks on this board.)

I hope so. I'm not one but I'm under the impression that no-one, LEO and certainly not civilian 'security', can order the deletion of photos or seizure of equipment without a warrant.

Assuming no criminal activity occurred; even then surely the photos would have to be kept as evidence? Strikes me this whole thing is just a macho bluff; aka security.

What Then, Bearcat06?
 

Somewhat hypothetical, Bearcat06, but asking as a journalist who has some working familiarity with the legal rights of photographers, what would you have done when I refused your request to delete my photographs?

Hopefully nothing - since there is no legal basis on which to order someone to delete their photographs or confiscate camera equipment.

As a LEO weren't you the least bit curious what statue you were enforcing before ordering someone to delete pictures from their personal camera?

Wouldn't that information be needed if the person refused to delete the images and you had to arrest them?

I just really liked this quote, so I thought I would just post it again. :)

I'll tell you my take. Fourth Amendment rights aren't really the issue as no unreasonable search is involved. First and Fifth Amendment rights, however, are. Under the Fifth Amendment you can not be deprived of property without due process of law. Under the First Amendment, prospective censorship demands strict scrutiny, i.e. least restrictive means and compelling state interest. There is no due process when a state actor demands destruction of the image or surrender of the film, nor is requiring examination and/or clearance of photographs that were taken in compliance with the First Amendment. A Fourth Amendment interest may be implicated if a state actor demands to inspect the photograph that was taken.

If you are in public, you have the right to take pictures of whatever you want (provided it's not protected by copyright). No one has the right to demand that you either surrender the film/memory card or destroy the film/delete the memory card.

John Rockwell scribbles:

"Our folks need to be aware that he or his associates may try to bait us into some inappropriate action sometime in the future."

The guy thinks rather highly of himself, doesn't he? :D

Hey, he's a (gasp) Chief of Police. OK he's only a chief of an airport PD not a real one but still, goes with the job.