|
What can I do but add to the chrous of FT'ers who think this is an OUTRAGE. :mad:
You're getting lots of advice on this thread (and probably from your friends and family.) I, for one, hope you get the cop's badge, since jackbooted thugs like him have no place in law enforcement. Do what's best for you, but know that your fellow FT'ers will help you in any way we can. Most of all, I'm sorry this happened to you. What a total jackass. |
It probably shouldn't be legal but it is standard practice in certain areas to hold a person a certain number of hours or until a certain time because otherwise the jail will not receive funding based on that person's presence in the jail. Some jails only get credit for prisoners counted at a certain hour or held a certain length of time. So they lose funding for that individual if they immediately release someone, yet they have the same paperwork costs.
In other words, I think the jail had a financial motive to keep the prisoner for the entire 12 hours even though they acknowledge that he was wrongly arrested. I doubt he will win a lawsuit or be allowed to sue, but occasionally the courts do hear a false arrest case, so I don't see the harm in his talking to an attorney who specializes in false arrest. In an ideal world, false arrest would always be punished. It's a fine line to walk, since LEOs can't be constantly fearful that they will be subject to lawsuit merely for doing their job. I think what happened to the OP sounds terribly unfair but I am pessimistic about his chances for legal remedy. I think the LEO will just state, and perhaps even honestly, that he sincerely believed that OP to be impaired, so it will become "he says, she says." IANAL though so take it with a grain. [QUOTE=exerda]Not being a lawyer, the bit about the "well, you passed your drug test, so the charge we arrested you on is clearly false... but we STILL have to hold you for 12 hours" part really ticks me off--is that even legal?! :mad: [quote] |
Originally Posted by eastwest
I have a SIDA badge so if it can happen to me...it could happen to ANY of you. |
I am a personal injury lawyer licensed on NY & NJ. If were licensed in CA, I would certainly take the case. I have settled cases in NYC for false imprisonment a/k/a false arrest wherein the plaintiff was held for less than 24 hours. The average settlement was $15-20K. After subtracting disbursements and the attorneys fee, there's still a nice sum available for multiple mileage runs.
|
Originally Posted by billinaz
Do yourself a favor.
SUE the Officer, department, and airport for the false arrest. It is the only way they will learn. add my support for it... these kinds of acts should not go unpunished. |
Good for you. Many years ago I lived in a jurisdiction notorious for its injustices, and the same sheriff still operates there after all these decades, which undoubtedly contributes to my pessimism. It's encouraging to hear from a licensed attorney that false arrest can indeed be redressed.
Originally Posted by mdc57
I am a personal injury lawyer licensed on NY & NJ. If were licensed in CA, I would certainly take the case. I have settled cases in NYC for false imprisonment a/k/a false arrest wherein the plaintiff was held for less than 24 hours. The average settlement was $15-20K. After subtracting disbursements and the attorneys fee, there's still a nice sum available for multiple mileage runs.
|
First of all, the OP's account does have a lot of emotional hype and rhetoric. Still, I, too, am incensed at the way this incident was handled and also recommend getting a lawyer and pursuing legal action against TSA and the city (as the ultimate ones responsible for the actions of the airport police).
That the rubber band ball drew some additional scrutiny is nothing unusual. Depending on the technology of the x-ray machine, a ball of rubber bands may appear as if it has a metallic center. However, here is where the TSA officers began a string of deviations from written SOP (assuming the OP's account is accurate): a. No TSO should begin searching a bag without first notifying the owner of the bag and explaining that a bag search is necessary. Any physical search of property should be done in full view of the owner. (They violated this procedure twice: at the x-ray machine and at the private screening area where the property was screened out of the OP's view.) I am hoping the OP will use this in constructing a complaint and or other legal action against this specific TSA checkpoint because it will put pressure on TSA to clean up its act. However, there is more, and this time it's the LEO who needs to be held accountable as well:b. The bag search should be conducted at a location specifically set aside for searches and NOT at the x-ray machine or conveyor belt. c. I'm puzzled about the flammable residue part. ETD machines detect explosives not flammables. Either the OP misunderstood what was said or the TSO truly screwed up. I am not doubting what the OP is saying; I'm just pointing out that the ETD machine does not detect flammability. I'm curious how the STSO or TSO would testify to this in court; I'm sure the FSD would wonder the same thing. d. I am curious why the TSO didn't simply pass the hand held metal detector over the rubber band ball (unless we're talking about a basketball-sized rubber band ball; however, if we're talking about a baseball-sized or even softball-size ball, then the HHMD test should have sufficed). e. Assuming that the TSA "boss" was the supervisor, then his conduct was inexcusable. And this is where TSA training is lacking. General rule of thumb for screeners (and supervisors): once a matter is turned over to the LEO for resolution, shut the hell up. And the supervisor should have kept his mouth shut. Instead, the supervisor is now liable for statements about a triggering device and/or precursor element. If pursued, especially in court, that supervisor is going to have a hell of hard time convincing a judge or jury how a ball of rubber bands, even if it was to be doused with gasoline or other flammable, could be used as part of an improvised explosive device, especially if a search of the rest of the OP's carry-on property revealed no additional evidence. a. I am curious why the LEO got involved. Unless the supervisor specifically asked for his assistance, the LEO should have stayed out of it. There are two different actors in this incident with two very distinct responsibilities. The federal government (TSA) and the city government (airport police). While I'm sure real lawyers could advise the OP much better than I, my view is that there would be better success pursuing the city first because it is much easier to prove the LEO's wrongdoing because it actually resulted in an arrest and detention. Proving that the TSA supervisor's actions prompted that arrest would be difficult to establish unless it came out during testimony or other official documentation resulting from legal actions taken against the city. Could be wrong, but that's my two cents.b. If the TSO searched the bag, that's one thing. But if the LEO searched the bag, then the LEO screwed up in royal proportions. The search was no longer a security check; it became a criminal check once the LEO placed his hands on the bag meaning he should have advised the OP of his/her rights. c. The airport LEO made more dumb mistakes such as shining the flashlight in the OP's eyes and jumping to the grand conclusion that the OP was "on something." But I'm not really qualified to criticize beyond the general outline of the LEO's behavior because I am not familiar with all the details of the incident. Suffice it to say that the LEO should have either taken full charge of the situation or have stepped back as an observer. This joint handling by both the TSA and LEO, as a general rule, was a huge mistake because it can now be argued (though I don't know how successfully) that TSA crossed the line between simple security and law enforcement. This is the sort of incident that gives us all a black eye, so count me in as one who wants to see this matter remedied and result in better TSA management and oversight. |
Originally Posted by Palal
To everyone else, I have a feeling some of this nonsense will end in about 3 weeks, after the election.
|
Originally Posted by Palal
To everyone else, I have a feeling some of this nonsense will end in about 3 weeks, after the election.
It has nothing to do with who is in the White House or who has the majority in either houses of Congress. |
Originally Posted by bitburgr
I'm not sure why the November elections will get this to change. (Other than the current polls seeming to indicate that the Democrats approval rating is less bad than the Republicans approval rating.) If you can point me to some specific information, I would love to read it (and this is an honest request...no sarcasm or baiting intended!)
|
Wow, I thought this was the ziplock thread at first. I'd encourage the OP to pursue this, either in the press or with a lawyer. I'd ask for damages for your precious pet rubberband ball, you most cherished companion. :)
|
Originally Posted by mdc57
I am a personal injury lawyer licensed on NY & NJ. If were licensed in CA, I would certainly take the case. I have settled cases in NYC for false imprisonment a/k/a false arrest wherein the plaintiff was held for less than 24 hours. The average settlement was $15-20K. After subtracting disbursements and the attorneys fee, there's still a nice sum available for multiple mileage runs.
By multiple, he means two $39 runs for about 2000 miles. He gets the rest. |
Originally Posted by Jaimito Cartero
Wow, I thought this was the ziplock thread at first. I'd encourage the OP to pursue this, either in the press or with a lawyer. I'd ask for damages for your precious pet rubberband ball, you most cherished companion. :)
|
Originally Posted by Bart
Cute, but you clearly miss the point. Unlike the ziploc thread which was a thinly-disguised provocation by the OP that succeeded, this is more than just recovering simple damages. It's about a police officer who acted on questionable grounds that resulted in the actual arrest and detention of the OP.
|
Originally Posted by cme2c
By multiple, he means two $39 runs for about 2000 miles. He gets the rest.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:50 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.