Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Using Someone Else's Ticket

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 10, 2012, 6:39 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
Originally Posted by Often1
The answer is that it is not allowed, is actually illegal and, at a minimum will subject you to a world of hurt if you are ever caught. For what it's worth, TSA does random secondaries at the gate, often checking ID's just to root this out. At that point, you're standing at the gate with a useless ticket and either purchasing a seat at walk-up fares or slinking away.
Please cite the law that makes it illegal. As far as I can tell, the only thing it might be is a violation of contract and/or ethics.

What statutory authority does TSA have to set up a suspicionless criminal dragnet at the entrance to an airplane? TSA testified in court there is no obligation to show ID in order to fly, and there is certainly no legal requirement to consent to a warrantless search as requested by a random federal employee with no probable cause, no reasonable suspicion, and most importantly, no law enforcement powers.
Originally Posted by TSORon
... will get you arrested more than likely. There are 2 ID checks between the main airport doors and the aircraft, failing at either will get the local police called.
Arrested for what? There's no crime, so the police officer would be putting himself at risk for civil suit for false arrest. In my state, at least, the cops can't force me to show ID unless I'm being arrested. <shrug>
janetdoe is offline  
Old Sep 10, 2012, 8:45 pm
  #32  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
Originally Posted by janetdoe
Please cite the law that makes it illegal. As far as I can tell, the only thing it might be is a violation of contract and/or ethics.
The charge would be for "being a stowaway aboard an aircraft". Look up the case of Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi, who was arrested for boarding a plane with a false boarding pass.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Sep 10, 2012, 10:26 pm
  #33  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by cbn42
The charge would be for "being a stowaway aboard an aircraft". Look up the case of Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi, who was arrested for boarding a plane with a false boarding pass.
False boarding pass used by him on the day of his being considered a "stowaway", or real boarding passes, perhaps with some doctored elements, used by him to board with an actual eticket that was even accepted by the airline for check-in and/or flying absent arrest?
GUWonder is offline  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 12:03 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
Originally Posted by cbn42
The charge would be for "being a stowaway aboard an aircraft". Look up the case of Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi, who was arrested for boarding a plane with a false boarding pass.
Well, at most it would be 'intent to be a stowaway' <thoughtcrime> or 'attempted theft' or 'attempted fraud'. 18 USC 2199 is pretty clear you have to get on board and be there at takeoff. ID checks at the gate would either fail (in which case you wouldn't be caught) or catch you (in which case you couldn't board).

Mr. Noibi was able to plead guilty and get away with paying $950 in damages to VA and time served.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...126870048.html
An apparently homeless Nigerian-American man has agreed to plead guilty Tuesday to stowing away on a flight from New York to Los Angeles, federal prosecutors said Friday.

According to a signed agreement with prosecutors, 24-year-old Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi will enter his plea in Los Angeles federal court to one felony count that could land him in prison for up to five years.

He has also agreed to pay $942 restitution to Virgin America for the cost of the cross-country flight, according to the agreement.

In exchange for the plea, prosecutors will drop a second felony charge that Noibi attempted to use a fake identity to enter a secure area at Los Angeles International Airport, court documents show.
<snip>
At the bail hearing, federal public defense attorney Carl Gunn said the accusations against his client amounted to little more than "theft of an airplane flight."
And once again, TSA dodges a bullet because there will be no courtroom discovery on the law/regulations/orders that govern showing ID at a security checkpoint.
janetdoe is offline  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 12:36 am
  #35  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
In exchange for the plea, prosecutors will drop a second felony charge that Noibi attempted to use a fake identity to enter a secure area at Los Angeles International Airport, court documents show.
So if the prosecutor was prepared to charge him for this, then there must be some law against it. Can anyone dig up the court document and see under what law this charge was made before they reached the plea bargain?
cbn42 is offline  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 10:19 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
Originally Posted by cbn42
So if the prosecutor was prepared to charge him for this, then there must be some law against it. Can anyone dig up the court document and see under what law this charge was made before they reached the plea bargain?
The FBI warrant only mentions the stowaway charge.
http://documents.latimes.com/fbi-aff...line-stowaway/

Here is the sentencing document, and apparently you can buy additional info:
http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfr...204.CCA.htm/qx

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters...stowaway_case/
The case is USA v. Noibi, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 2:11-cr-641
but only the stowaway charges are mentioned. When a prosecutor 'drops charges' does that mean someone was originally charged? Or does it mean "The prosecutor chose not to file the charge"? I have no idea how to find those court documents.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S...on-2365981.php
Noibi has dual citizenship in the U.S. and Nigeria. Investigators were looking into whether he had any terrorist links in that country. However, asked if any terrorism charges would be filed, Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office said, "We've made no allegations other than he was a stowaway."
<snip>
The TSA said in a statement the officer who reviewed Noibi's travel documents "did not identify that (he) was traveling with improper travel documents." The agency maintained he received the same thorough physical screening as other passengers.

Last edited by janetdoe; Sep 11, 2012 at 10:44 am
janetdoe is offline  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 10:47 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AS, BA, AA
Posts: 3,670
Originally Posted by cbn42
So if the prosecutor was prepared to charge him for this, then there must be some law against it. Can anyone dig up the court document and see under what law this charge was made before they reached the plea bargain?
I found it cached in google, but when I try to click the direct link, I get a 404 error.

INDICTMENT

18 U.S.C. 2199: STOWAWAY ABOARD AN AIRCRAFT.
18 U.S.C. 1036(a)(4),(b)(1): ATTEMPTED ENTRY BY FALSE PRETENSE TO SECURE AREA OF AIRPORT.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...2578cc00674dda
janetdoe is offline  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 10:50 am
  #38  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Programs: Double Platinum all programs (Shh it's a secret level)
Posts: 250
Have you ever heard the phrase: "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted"
The process of handing the gate agent a boarding pass in the name of another person is fraud or theft of services or any of a number of offenses you could be charged with. You may be looking for loopholes in the "stowaway" law, but it's real easy to charge you with any of the offenses I mentioned.
RenHoek is offline  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 12:16 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Originally Posted by cbn42
You cited it yourself. "attempting to circumvent... any security system". The ID checks are a security system. Attempting to circumvent them is specifically listed as a civil offense (not a crime, but still an offense).
Big difference between a civil fine of a few thousand $ and a "five-year federal felony" as suggested by another poster.
studentff is offline  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 12:48 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Originally Posted by studentff
Big difference between a civil fine of a few thousand $ and a "five-year federal felony" as suggested by another poster.
There are two "classes" of punishment under 18 USC 1036
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.
From which it may be inferred that entry by false pretenses itself is not a felony?
Wally Bird is offline  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 5:50 pm
  #41  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
Here, I found it.

(a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter--
``(1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States;
``(2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States; or
``(3) any secure area of any airport,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
``(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is--
``(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or
``(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case.

``(c) As used in this section--
``(1) the term `secure area' means an area access to which is restricted by the airport authority or a public agency; and
``(2) the term `airport' has the meaning given such term in section 47102 of title 49.''.


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...106publ547.htm

In other words, 6 month imprisonment if you even attempt to enter a secure area with a fake document, or 5 years if you do it with intent to commit a felony. This is certainly a criminal and not a civil matter.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Sep 11, 2012, 6:29 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA Platinum, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 1,177
Originally Posted by cbn42
In other words, 6 month imprisonment if you even attempt to enter a secure area with a fake document, or 5 years if you do it with intent to commit a felony. This is certainly a criminal and not a civil matter.
Isn't the situation described in this thread in in which the entrance to the secure area is done with a real document, i.e. gate pass, club membership, or refundable airline ticket in your own name?

After which, one boards the plane presenting a boarding pass to a gate agent (airline employee) and flies to their destination. No lying, misrepresenting, or otherwise falsifying anything to any government agent or official.
cparekh is offline  
Old Sep 12, 2012, 1:35 am
  #43  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by cparekh
Isn't the situation described in this thread in in which the entrance to the secure area is done with a real document, i.e. gate pass, club membership, or refundable airline ticket in your own name?

After which, one boards the plane presenting a boarding pass to a gate agent (airline employee) and flies to their destination. No lying, misrepresenting, or otherwise falsifying anything to any government agent or official.
Indeed. It is speculative to think that the segment clipped from the GPO link would necessarily or even generally be violated.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Sep 12, 2012, 11:43 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,418
This is interesting, because the "stowaway" law might be read to apply to someone using another's ticket, based on lack of "consent" from the airline to carry that passenger. I.e., they consent to carry only the named passenger, and not another.

18 U.S.C. Section 2199. Whoever, without the consent of the owner, charterer, master, or person in command of any vessel, or aircraft, with intent to obtain transportation, boards, enters or secretes himself aboard such vessel or aircraft and is thereon at the time of departure of said vessel or aircraft from a port, harbor, wharf, airport or other place within the jurisdiction of the United States; or
Whoever, with like intent, having boarded, entered or secreted himself aboard a vessel or aircraft at any place within or without the jurisdiction of the United States, remains aboard after the vessel or aircraft has left such place and is thereon at any place within the jurisdiction of the United States; or
Whoever, with intent to obtain a ride or transportation, boards or enters any aircraft owned or operated by the United States without the consent of the person in command or other duly authorized officer or agent—
(1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(2) if the person commits an act proscribed by this section, with the intent to commit serious bodily injury, and serious bodily injury occurs (as defined under section 1365, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242) to any person other than a participant as a result of a violation of this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(3) if an individual commits an act proscribed by this section, with the intent to cause death, and if the death of any person other than a participant occurs as a result of a violation of this section, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any number of years or for life, or both.
The word “aircraft” as used in this section includes any contrivance for navigation or flight in the air.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2199
drewguy is offline  
Old Sep 12, 2012, 2:20 pm
  #45  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by drewguy
This is interesting, because the "stowaway" law might be read to apply to someone using another's ticket, based on lack of "consent" from the airline to carry that passenger. I.e., they consent to carry only the named passenger, and not another.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2199
The airline agent consents to passenger boarding the flight when the boarding pass is swiped and the passenger is allowed by the airline employees at the gate to board. An airline may have employee representations or other representations that are not consistent with one another, but somewhere in the process someone with an agency relationship for the airline may well consent to boarding the passenger.

Take the situation of lap child infants on international flights. Sometimes they fly without a ticket even when a ticket is generally required for the booked itinerary and the infant's adult companions make repeated effort to buy the tickets for the lap child infant. Who is an unlawful stowaway in such situation? It is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to be a stowaway. Much the same for someone who may buy concert or sport tickets from an out-of-state ticket scalper for an event where it is claimed that ticket resales are prohibited.

The government making a criminal case out of a civil contract term violations further opens a can of worms that makes just about every one of the age of majority into a potential criminal prosecution target .... all at the whims of the government. Not a good thing IMO.
GUWonder is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.