BNA Police Officer Threatens Arrest for Filming TSA Checkpoint, Confiscates Phone
Nov 29, 2010, 7:12 pm
#106
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 42,289
Guys,
Please. Bearcat06 is being straightforward in his answers. You may not like the answers, and he has already admitted that his officer probably went a little off the mark and said if he were in a supervisory position, the officer would be disciplined.
Did he take the camera? Yes.
Should he have? Probably not.
Is the TSA ambiguous, arbitrary, capricious and whimsical? Yes indeed.
Will the officer be disciplined? Yes, but along the lines of Gee, George, that wasn't one of your brighter moves--don't do it again. You know how those TSA idiots are.
A little common sense will go a long ways. Our system tolerates a little elasticity at the edges to make sure that most things are ok. On both sides of the uniform.
Suppose the cop had kept the camera as contraband or any other thing. Then you can redress this, through appropriate channels.
Don't bait the Bear!
Please. Bearcat06 is being straightforward in his answers. You may not like the answers, and he has already admitted that his officer probably went a little off the mark and said if he were in a supervisory position, the officer would be disciplined.
Did he take the camera? Yes.
Should he have? Probably not.
Is the TSA ambiguous, arbitrary, capricious and whimsical? Yes indeed.
Will the officer be disciplined? Yes, but along the lines of Gee, George, that wasn't one of your brighter moves--don't do it again. You know how those TSA idiots are.
A little common sense will go a long ways. Our system tolerates a little elasticity at the edges to make sure that most things are ok. On both sides of the uniform.
Suppose the cop had kept the camera as contraband or any other thing. Then you can redress this, through appropriate channels.
Don't bait the Bear!
And we shouldn't forget that he is only addressing his own airport, not suggesting that this is how it works at all airports.
Nov 29, 2010, 7:35 pm
#107
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
But, I didn't get shot.
Nov 29, 2010, 10:19 pm
#108
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Programs: AA,AS,UA,Hyatt,Hilton
Posts: 1,246
unlawful seizure
Originally Posted by 4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This disturbs me greatly.
We hear all the time from LEO's on this board how we as citizens are expected to follow LEO directions without question or be prepared for the inevitable "consequences" of our failure to do so.
Yet when our public servant blatantly violates the Constitution he is sworn to uphold we get "rolleyes" icons and "pffft". We are expected to take on faith that whatever "verbal counseling" or other non-punishment the officer's supervisor deigns appropriate is of sufficient "consequence" that future violations will not recur. In fact we must take it on faith because we are told it is considered an internal training matter and not any of our business.
The way this violation of the supreme law of the land is treated as a triviality by the LEOs on this board evinces a callous disregard for the rights of the American people, rights those very officers have taken a solemn oath to defend.
Nov 30, 2010, 9:02 am
#109
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
) or simply as part of the "command presence" dogma (double ).4th Amendment violation ? No:
The Supreme Court has held that searches and arrests can be performed without a warrant under some circumstances. Most notably, arrests and searches can be performed if the officer personally witnesses the suspect committing a misdemeanor, or has reasonable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a specific, documented felony.
Less than stellar performance by this LEO ? Undoubtedly.
Nov 30, 2010, 9:48 am
#110
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
Req airport police expertise: airport photography/videography: misdemeanor or felony?
4th Amendment violation ? No:
The Supreme Court has held that searches and arrests can be performed without a warrant under some circumstances. Most notably, arrests and searches can be performed if the officer personally witnesses the suspect committing a misdemeanor, or has reasonable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a specific, documented felony.
Nov 30, 2010, 1:11 pm
#111
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,487
Photographers, specifically those who work for the press, claim the 1st protects them being interpreted as not limited to speech, but applicable to all forms of communication.
Court opinions have been divided on the issue. No surprise there.
See also "Freedom of the Press" and "Flag Burning".
Court opinions have been divided on the issue. No surprise there.
See also "Freedom of the Press" and "Flag Burning".
I have no problem with photography being considered a form of speech.
They're not showing pictures, though, they are taking them.
Nov 30, 2010, 2:29 pm
#112
In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 361
Tennessee Statute
39-14-103. Theft of property.
A person commits theft of property if, with intent to deprive the owner of property, the person knowingly obtains or exercises control over the property without the owner's effective consent.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591, 1.]
So if you or I do it, it's theft. And an officer acting outside his authority has no more right or protection than any citizen. While the DA probably won't take the case, bearcat's cavalier approach is quite troubling.
Nov 30, 2010, 2:29 pm
#113
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Nov 30, 2010, 3:26 pm
#114
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,339
I don't think there is any question that this individual had his effects seized, albeit temporarily, and I don't think anybody would argue that that this officer did so with lawful authority. It's obvious that this American's 4th Amendment rights were violated here, and from the people who presumably are sworn to uphold those rights and to defend the Constituton we get:
This disturbs me greatly.
We hear all the time from LEO's on this board how we as citizens are expected to follow LEO directions without question or be prepared for the inevitable "consequences" of our failure to do so.
Yet when our public servant blatantly violates the Constitution he is sworn to uphold we get "rolleyes" icons and "pffft". We are expected to take on faith that whatever "verbal counseling" or other non-punishment the officer's supervisor deigns appropriate is of sufficient "consequence" that future violations will not recur. In fact we must take it on faith because we are told it is considered an internal training matter and not any of our business.
The way this violation of the supreme law of the land is treated as a triviality by the LEOs on this board evinces a callous disregard for the rights of the American people, rights those very officers have taken a solemn oath to defend.
This disturbs me greatly.
We hear all the time from LEO's on this board how we as citizens are expected to follow LEO directions without question or be prepared for the inevitable "consequences" of our failure to do so.
Yet when our public servant blatantly violates the Constitution he is sworn to uphold we get "rolleyes" icons and "pffft". We are expected to take on faith that whatever "verbal counseling" or other non-punishment the officer's supervisor deigns appropriate is of sufficient "consequence" that future violations will not recur. In fact we must take it on faith because we are told it is considered an internal training matter and not any of our business.
The way this violation of the supreme law of the land is treated as a triviality by the LEOs on this board evinces a callous disregard for the rights of the American people, rights those very officers have taken a solemn oath to defend.
I started to reply to Bearcato6 but didn't see any point in trying to have a conversation with someone who is so dismissive of others opinions.
Nov 30, 2010, 8:20 pm
#117
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Programs: AA,AS,UA,Hyatt,Hilton
Posts: 1,246
Some posters got sidetracked into semantics over confiscation vs. taking possession. The point is whatever you call it, it was unnecessary and done either to stop OP from fleeing () or simply as part of the "command presence" dogma (double ).
4th Amendment violation ? No:
Reasonable cause ? Probably not.
Less than stellar performance by this LEO ? Undoubtedly.
) or simply as part of the "command presence" dogma (double ).4th Amendment violation ? No:
The Supreme Court has held that searches and arrests can be performed without a warrant under some circumstances. Most notably, arrests and searches can be performed if the officer personally witnesses the suspect committing a misdemeanor, or has reasonable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a specific, documented felony.
Reasonable cause ? Probably not.
Less than stellar performance by this LEO ? Undoubtedly.
Nov 30, 2010, 9:44 pm
#118
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
I have stated that the officer was wrong, ignorant and incompetent, and should be rebuked.
Blathering on about the 4th Amendment is far less important than the questions posed to Bearcat which he seems unable or unwilling to answer.
Blathering on about the 4th Amendment is far less important than the questions posed to Bearcat which he seems unable or unwilling to answer.
Last edited by Wally Bird; Dec 1, 2010 at 11:19 am Reason: Clarification
Dec 1, 2010, 5:09 pm
#119
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,726
I don't see how you can be so quick to dismiss the contention that this man's 4th Amendment rights have been violated. The case law you cite says certain seizures are Constitutional if the officer has witnessed a misdemeanor or has reasonable cause to suspect a felony has been committed. Neither apply here. It's apparent that this officer had neither witnessed a misdemeanor nor had reasonable cause to suspect a felony and therefore neither of the "exceptions" you cited apply. How does that not add up to an unconstitutional seizure?
Last edited by n4zhg; Dec 1, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Dec 1, 2010, 5:24 pm
#120
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,439
I look forward to some insight from Bearcat06 about how TSA's ever-changing policies affect an airport police officer's job of enforcing the law.