Police Report ?
 

I thought this post seemed a bit over the top, but I wanted to read the entire thread first..
Interesting - not one of the multiple 'oh you poor baby those jerks' support posts bothered to ask the OP to post his copy of the police report.
There are two sides to *every* story, and the OP could have validated his claim by posting that report.
While some of the identifying info is not what one wants to have on the 'ent, common practice is to white out such info .
If the OP did not receive or failed to request a copy , he can still obtain one, and would need to do so in order to sue *anyone*.
I find it interesting that the OP's recollections of the event are taken at face value.
While some actions are legal for cops , others for TSA, etc- I have noticed that in many situations even minor airport personel do not know *everything* , shocking as that may seem to the OP's legions of supporters.
If the OP is not correct as to which action was taken by which person, then his point may be moot.
If the OP is pretty darn sure he does not want to sue, we can guess that perhaps he may have portrayed himself and his behavior just a tad better than actual events at the time.
Given that his personal portrayal of events still leaves him looking fairly foolish to anyone without a "I can do and say whatever I want to teh pigs" attitude...
I'd guess that the OP was in the wrong, *knows* he was in the wrong, but is indulging in the happy human habit of a little judicious rewriting of personal history and taking comfort from all the moral support that garners him.

Police report please?
All the speculation in the world as to who was right or wrong is useless without *both* sides of any disagreement. And any outraged reactions of 'how dare you question the OP's honesty' etc simply serve to show which readers have little interest in hearing anything that doesn't meet their preconceived notions of 'how things oughta'.
:rolleyes:

Please sue for a lot of money.

As a photographer who uses professional reversal film I have vast experience with hostile, ignorant screeners. It seems clear that everyone knew that there was no risk to airline safety, but you spoke back and so an intimidating message was required. The message is "we have the discretionary power to make you miss your flight and delay or ban you from any further air travel". That's the message they wanted the public to get and they were successful.

I must have missed the clause in the Constitution that states "If Smithers thinks your actions are immature then the rights otherwise recognized in this document don't apply."

Welcome to FlyerTalk :rolleyes:

I have copies of both the police report and a letter from the district attorney stating that no charges were filed because no drugs were found in my blood sample. I'm certainly not going to post them on FT (or anywhere) just to satisfy your whims, though. I have no intention of suing anyone because I work in this industry and I like this industry, and I just want to put this behind me and move on. If you feel the need to find confidence in my version of the facts, realize that not only were no charges filed against me by the DA but that the FAA has not revoked or challenged my security clearance and my employer has taken no action against me. If that doesn't convince you of my "rightness" then other documents won't either.

In closing, welcome to Flyertalk! When you have been around for six years (as I have) and you have met many Flyertalk members in person (as I have) maybe you'll have some of the credibility around here that I seem to "enjoy." :rolleyes:

Best regards,
-eastwest

I'm sorry you won't, because that will only encourage them to keep doing it, and I might be their victim next time. If you did, they'd learn something, and be less likely to violate my rights.

Don't apologize to that person.
Good Luck eastwest, If I am ever at ANC I will buy you a coffee or iced tea ;)

I am the first person to be angered by police misconduct...An American committed to the principles of the 4th ammendment, and deeply suspicious of the current federal security apparatus as pertains to travel. However, I have to say: Sounds like the OP, while he may have been technically 'correct', is a hothead, and had the opportunity to sail past that checkpoint with no problems, no dramatic story to tell, provided he didn't react so provocatively.

>>>>I replied, "it's my rubber band ball. What are you doing looking through my bag?"

Not the best way to get on anybody's good side, especially not someone in a position of authority.

>>>I told him to "quit running at the mouth"

You said this to a SHERIFF's DEPUTY, and expected him to what...smile back at you?

>>>The cop then switched tactics and asked, "are you smuggling drugs?"

Yeah...If I were a cop, I'd probably want to teach you a lesson at that point, too.

>>>"Dude, I load bags all day. I know better than to check them."

Again...A police officer...Not a bowling buddy.

From a strictly legal standpoint, if the OP has a case to pursue, I would wholeheartedly support his right to do so, and would hope he would prevail (provided the law is indeed in his favor). But if he should tell the judge to "quit running at the mouth" like he did to the sheriff's deputy, then he shouldn't be surprised to find himself again a guest of the LA county jail. And he'd deserve it, too.

Eastwest is a cool guy. I look forward to meeting him in Anc, just have to figure out how to do so. Working the ramp in Anc in winter takes superior people.

Real brave guys, setting up those single-use extra login names. :rolleyes:

OK let's be "simple" here - in spite of those calling for a lawsuit, it has very little chance of success because of the nature of the beast (the beast being both TSA and the law inforcement (sic) duh-thorities in SoCal. Even if you file, they will claim "Chust doink my chob, komerad" (either that or another of the TSA IDIOTS (there are many others with "cop wannabee attitudes out there) overeacting)

That having been said, IF TSA's ONLY remaining use is to prevent bombs on planes (remember the armored flight decks - bullets and knives don't count any more) why do some (FEW from what I have seen but enough to be statistically significant) cop an attitude? Worse yet, there is no way (no way I've seen) to make a complaint against the "offenders" and have it make its way up the food chain of TSA. Some screeners are just not suited for this service. But it's "civil service" - maybe "un" civil at times.

Try as we might (blogs notwithstanding) aside from the occassional TSA reader (who gets offended at our collective pronouncements of their also collective "madness"), this forum has the net effect equivalent to "mammaries on a male porcine" (teats on a boar hog) We write, somebody reads, goes "HO-HUM" and life goes on as it was before. Hopefully, some of the things that "caused" the necessity of these reports might go "away" - not be repeated, at the very least.

(sorry if my evaluation of the status quo offends anyone, but that's my "PUT")

First, the Nuremberg defense doesn't work.

Second, what is their excuse for holding him after they acknowledged that there were no drugs found in the test, and they admitted they had no reason to continue holding him? Defending against a charge of false imprisonment should be interesting.cn.

Legal advice from an engineer? :D

Oh, I wholeheartedly AGREE - NOW find a JURY that will LISTEN. If Customs destroys something and finds no contraband they won't have to pay either. It's the doctrine of "suspicion" (we thought we saw something...) and trying to get past a JUDGE (probably easier to get by a JURY) is going to be "difficult" - and that's being "kind".

With the majority (assumed majority - if it ISN'T then "something is rotten in the state of America" to paraphrase Hamlet) of the GENERAL flying public having the mentality thinking that "Whatever TSA does is GOOOOD for us. Besides, the gummint says it MUST BE GOOD so it HAS to be GOOD..." << THAT mentality<< the net result is a CARTE BLANCHE for TSA (deservedly or not as the case may be) WORSE yet, even after we rid ourselves of the 'Dub-diot, the civil service being what it is, TSA will continue to be both a service (depends on what airport and what TSA supervisor) and a monumental pain in the @$$.

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV... :mad:

I'm not anti-TSA - I'm anti "stupidity promulgated at the behest of the federal government"