![]() |
Flashing harbormaster's badge at BOS enabled escorted security bypass
The incident in question allegedly occurred in January 2007, only enhancing the bizarreness of it all. :td:
Rockland man allegedly posed as agent to board plane By O’Ryan Johnson Wednesday, November 26, 2008 State police and airline ticket agents whisked a Rockland man who claimed he had a gun around TSA security checkpoints at Logan International Airport, putting him on a plane after he flashed a Chatham assistant harbormaster’s badge and claimed he was a federal agent, an FBI affidavit said. Federal prosecutors yesterday charged Stephen Grant, 48, of Rockland with impersonating a federal agent. Grant is a medical supply salesman who worked summer weekends in Chatham monitoring boaters. Grant told the Herald last night he is innocent, claiming a misunderstanding, and said the situation was settled nearly two years ago after he admitted to mistakes and paid a $4,000 fine. He said at no time did he carry a gun. http://tinyurl.com/5pxl35 |
and i'm the king of spain with my tootsie-pop as the royal scepter
what a jerk and what a screw up on all parties involved |
Why did it take almost two years to charge him?
|
There have been lots of published accounts (since 9/11) of people claiming to be "railroad police" being allowed to carry guns through airport screening stations.
|
Though required by federal rules, at no point did Grant show them a letter from the Department of Homeland Security, his supposed employer, stating the reason he needed to carry a gun, the affidavit said. A gate agent in San Diego spotted the error, and the FBI met Grant at Logan. |
Originally Posted by magellan315
(Post 10817771)
Great two years later and he gets charged. The only people who should be charged are the ones who should have stopped this by following policy as written.
|
Originally Posted by Ari
(Post 10817444)
Why did it take almost two years to charge him?
If it were a bottle of water, you bet he would have been in jail by now. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Joe Airman
(Post 10817501)
There have been lots of published accounts (since 9/11) of people claiming to be "railroad police" being allowed to carry guns through airport screening stations.
***************************** From: Railroad Special Agents: "All of the major Class I railroads and most regional carriers employ their own police departments whose officers carry the title Special Agent. Railroad Special Agents are commissioned by the Governor or other agency of the state they are employed in, are armed, and carry state arrest powers in all states in which their employing railroad owns property, if authorized by the state. Their primary concern is policing crimes against the railroad, although they sometimes have the authority to police the general public, make arrests on public property, and enforce applicable local, state, and/or federal laws when necessary." ***************************** Thus as sworn, full-time law enforcement who are armed and have arrest power, "railroad police" would be authorized to carry firearms onboard an aircraft if they had a letter from their department stating a need for them to have their weapon accessible from the time they would otherwise check the weapon until the time they would retrieve the weapon after deplaning. |
Originally Posted by brain615
(Post 10833739)
Thus as sworn, full-time law enforcement who are armed and have arrest power,
If a privately employed police officer witnesses a crime committed by his/her employer or employee thereof, does ignoring that crime constitute bribery (salary would stop if the arrest were made)?
Originally Posted by brain615
(Post 10833739)
"railroad police" would be authorized to carry firearms onboard an aircraft if they had a letter from their department stating a need for them to have their weapon accessible from the time they would otherwise check the weapon until the time they would retrieve the weapon after deplaning.
|
Originally Posted by ralfp
(Post 10834129)
Am I the only one who finds the idea of privately employed police officers somewhat unseemly? The payment of a salary creates an obligation that could all-too-easily run counter to the duties of a law-enforcement officer.
Originally Posted by ralfp
(Post 10834129)
If a privately employed police officer witnesses a crime committed by his/her employer or employee thereof, does ignoring that crime constitute bribery (salary would stop if the arrest were made)?
Originally Posted by ralfp
(Post 10834129)
How often can this be the case? How many railroad assets are in the aircraft cabin or "sterile" area of an airport.
1) On a protective assignment 2) On a surveillance assignment deemed to be hazardous 3) On official travel required to report to another location, armed and prepared for duty 4) Employed as a Federal LEO and required by agency policy to be armed at all times 5) Escorting a prisoner 6) TSA Federal Air Marshal on duty status The ones that could apply here include (1), (2), (3), and (5) - definitely most likely (3) - this is basically the catchall reason the LEO's use to carry when they want to |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:12 pm. |
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.