• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

TSA loses case against man refusing to show ID at US airport

pmocek

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
4
Location
Seattle, Washington, United States
The person about whom I made the comment, "Wow. Showing ID would be less intrusive than what that passenger went through," was not you. [...]
My point was that the additional hassles of trying to fly without ID are more intrusive than the requirement for ID.

Oh, I see. Unless you're employed by them, it's nearly impossible to determine just what TSA's policies are. But from what we can gather, prior to mid-2008, presenting documentation of your identity ("showing ID") at the airport simply bought you a less-intrusive search, and now it also buys you the removal of a requirement that you answer a bunch of questions that only you (and Choicepoint or whatever company they use to come up with the questions and expected answers) would know the answers to.

Following is something I wrote elsewhere (FlyerTalk Forums, "TSA's airline passenger identification policies") about what I've gathered:

What are the rules concerning airline passenger identification by TSA?

Although TSA refuses to publish all the rules they require passengers to follow at airport checkpoints, from what we can distill from TSA press releases, heavily-redacted information obtained via FOIA requests, TSA blog posts, and other information they publish on the Web, it's relatively clear that your boarding pass is all the documentation that's ever required for domestic flights. It seems that passengers are not required to present documentation of their identities to TSA staff, and that doing so is not a condition of crossing the TSA checkpoint, but rather is an option which allows passengers to cross the checkpoint with a less-thorough search of their belongings and fewer questions to answer.

TSA doesn't publish the rules they require us to follow, but the Freedom of Information Act should allow us to see those rules, right?

TSA's FOIA officer, Kevin J. Janet, doesn't seem to think so.

In June, 2009, I placed a FOIA request for TSA's Screening Management Standard Operating Procedures Manual, which upon their request, I clarified to mean, "a written description of procedures [TSA's] staff use at airport checkpoints when searching and interrogating people who are stopped by [their] staff at those checkpoints." I wanted to know how our federal airport security guards are instructed to do their jobs of ensuring compliance with the rules passengers are required to follow in order to avoid having their movement restricted. Nearly 13 months later, after much stalling and repeated reports that my request was undergoing various review processes, my request was denied in full.

TSA refuses to let us read the rules they require us to follow. So what do we know about their I.D. policies?

According to a 2008 press release from TSA, TSA's airport passenger identification policy changed on June 21, 2008, but "showing I.D." was seemingly not required before and is seemingly not required now.

Prior to June 21, 2008

Before June 21, 2008, the situation seemed to be: In order to proceed to the "secure area" of an airport after being stopped at a TSA barricade, each passenger must submit to a pat-down and search for metallic objects using a hand-held metal detector, along with a hand-searching of any carry-on baggage, unless he presents documentation of his identity (i.e., unless he "shows I.D."), in which case he must submit only to a search for metallic objects on his person via walk-through metal detector and search of any carry-on baggage using an X-ray machine.

In other words: back then, showing I.D. simply got you a less-thorough search than you'd otherwise receive.

Now

Beginning June 21, 2008, the situation seems to be: Each passenger still has the option of showing I.D. and participating in the less-thorough searches (walk-through metal detector and X-raying of carry-ons), but the alternative now involves not only being thoroughly searched for dangerous items, but also identifying oneself verbally and participating in an interrogation intended to verify one's identity (via phone call from Homeland Security headquarters). Chillingly, it seems from the aforementioned TSA press release that this alternative also requires that someone be "cooperative with officers". What that cooperation entails is not defined.

Initial reports from TSA indicated that while people who claimed that their government-issued I.D. card was misplaced or stolen would be allowed to take the alternate route through the checkpoint (with the questioning), those who willfully refused to show their papers would be barred from proceeding. It's unclear whether or not this is still the case, or if it was ever the case, as TSA's initial press release seems, based on information received from TSA via Freedom of Information Act request, to have been inaccurate.

Summary of present situation and how to exploit it

In short, best we can tell, complying with TSA's "papers, please!" request is not necessary in order to fly domestically, it's simply a way to avoid the hassle of a thorough search for dangerous items, the hassle of providing convincing information in support of your claim to be who you say you are, and having to cooperate with TSA airport staff in any manner they see fit.

This is a great system for people who wish to do harm in airports or on airplanes, since getting a falsified identification document (i.e., a "fake I.D.") is relatively simple, and presentation of one almost guarantees that TSA staff will look at someone with less scrutiny, making it easier for him to take weapons, explosives, or incendiaries past the security checkpoint. Even if TSA could detect such fraud with perfect accuracy, using the Carnival Booth Algorithm, terrorists can probe an identity-based security system like TSA's by sending a number of people on harmless trips through the system, noting who is flagged for extra searches and who isn't. Then they can send those who aren't flagged -- people who almost certainly will get through security with a less-thorough search -- on terrorist missions.

Why does TSA want to identify us? What's wrong with them doing so?

This isn't about your safety. It's about control -- a few people's control over the rest of us.

The primary reason that TSA wants to know who you are is their desire to restrict people's movement based on Homeland Security blacklists. As did every government that has imposed totalitarian rules, TSA repeatedly tells us that their freedom-restricting policies are about safety, security, and rooting out subversives. Of course, this policy is really about extra-judicial punishment, allowing our executive branch of government to sidestep our judicial branch and punish someone for any reason or no reason at all. That's not the way things are supposed to work in the United States. It's ripe for abuse, and it's an infringement on our freedom.

For more on showing I.D. in the general sense, please see the Identity Project's "What's Wrong With Showing I.D.?" page.

The problem here stems from the use of ID as an abbreviation for both identity and identity card.

I cringe every time I use the term "ID". It can mean identity, identification (the process), or documentation of identity (to which we often, confusingly, refer to as "identification"). Imagine dealing with a police officer who demands that you "give him your ID" when you have no such documentation with you. In the case of my arrest at ABQ, it was very clear that the officer wanted a document, because he kept telling me to get it, warning me that he'd search my bags for it, etc.

The law makes no mention of documentation of identity, just identity.

That depends on which law you're talking about.

To have broken that law, Mr. Mocek would have had to refuse to share his name with the TSA agent.

To have broken New Mexico's concealing identity law, it seems I would have neglected to identify myself once the officer was lawfully investigating me based on his suspicion that I'd violated the law. The jury in my case had to determine if Officer Dilley had reason to remove me from the airport (he did not) and if so, whether I refused to do so (I did not, though there was some question of whether the three-ish seconds from when he said, "alright, let's go," until I can be seen moving in the video constituted refusal to obey him). Of the four charges, concealing identity was the most complicated to deal with.

I'm not positive, and I wish it was not the case, but I think that under certain circumstances, people are required to identify themselves to police in New Mexico there even if an officer has not demanded or requested that they do so.

[Mocek's name] was on his ticket. Or, that name would have to have been false. We now know that is not the case.

Correct. You could say the same for any document I could have presented, though some are harder to falsify than others. Falsification of any of them is well within the capabilities of a determined criminal.

Clearly, the officers thought that not showing documentation of identity violated the NM law. Clearly it does not. (As it would not in Alabama.)

Nowhere in the United States are we required to have documentation of identity. It's my understanding, though, that in some jurisdictions, under some circumstances, we are required to show it to a police officer if we have it on us.
 

celticredneck

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
168
Location
Amelia County, virginia
WRVA's talk radio host, DOC Thompson was hassled by TSA agents and either a Richmond police officer or some kind of airport olice officer for "looking in the direction" of TSA agents. He reported the incident on his radio show, but I missed most of it because my wife called me with a couple of "Honeydo" items.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Lacking any documentation to prove otherwise, not my fault, TSA's fault. I question whether their request is lawful to begin with. A policy directive is not law. If anyone can point to federal law that supports your contention that their request and subsequent search is in fact lawful that would be most enlightening. The airlines can make it a term of service since they have a vested business interest in not losing an aircraft or bad publicity that affects "churn". I am not aware that airlines do in fact have a policy as a term of service to permit you to use their service regarding ID beyond a non-cash payment for services. What I do know is that airlines follow federal law that addresses commercial passenger air travel. What exactly that law is will be interesting to read.

If there is no law then all TSA requests and searches are illegal.

First of all, I was talking about the act of voluntarily choosing not to show ID, opting instead for a more intrusive search. My question was why would anyone OPT for the greater intrusion.

Of course asking for ID is lawful. Anyone can request anything. Since they will not force you to show it, the request for ID is lawful.
 

pmocek

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
4
Location
Seattle, Washington, United States
why would anyone OPT for the greater intrusion.

The ID check is an integral part of a system whereby the United States government restricts people's ability to move about the country. Two blacklists are maintained. If your name is on one of them and TSA identifies you, you will not be allowed to fly. If your name is on the other one and TSA identifies you, you will only be allowed to fly after additional hassle and scrutiny. We don't know who puts people on these lists, why they do so, or how to get off the lists. Such blacklisting allows the executive branch to punish someone without due process. There's no judicial oversight.

If we have a list of people who are suspected of wrongdoing, we should arrest them and put them in front of a judge, not wait for them to show up at an airport. When people are not suspected of wrongdoing, our government should leave them alone to go about their lawful business.

Resisting this system of restricting movement using blacklists is, indeed, less convenient than participating in it is.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The ID check is an integral part of a system whereby the United States government restricts people's ability to move about the country. Two blacklists are maintained. If your name is on one of them and TSA identifies you, you will not be allowed to fly. If your name is on the other one and TSA identifies you, you will only be allowed to fly after additional hassle and scrutiny. We don't know who puts people on these lists, why they do so, or how to get off the lists. Such blacklisting allows the executive branch to punish someone without due process. There's no judicial oversight.

If we have a list of people who are suspected of wrongdoing, we should arrest them and put them in front of a judge, not wait for them to show up at an airport. When people are not suspected of wrongdoing, our government should leave them alone to go about their lawful business.

Resisting this system of restricting movement using blacklists is, indeed, less convenient than participating in it is.

Once again, my question goes unanswered.

I am not justifying these intrusions. Either one. They need to go away. Period.

Furthermore, lawfully armed carriers should be allowed to fly. 9/11 can't happen with a handful of armed citizens on board.

But, again, why would anyone OPT for the greater of the two unreasonable intrusions?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
But, again, why would anyone OPT for the greater of the two unreasonable intrusions?

The question has been answered implicitly, and nearly explicitly too, for those with a capacity for analysis.

A better question might be, what purpose is served by asking yours?
 
Last edited:

Kirbinator

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
903
Location
Middle of the map, Alabama
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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Congrats on your court victory, Phil.

Are you familiar with Federan Civil Rights violation lawsuits? They fall under 42 USC 1983. The filing fee is only $300, and after that the US DOJ picks up the tab for ALL lawyer fees to prosecute, and the agent being sued CANNOT claim "qualified immunity"...

Since the TSA agent who had you arrested charged you with "failure to obey a lawful order", but testified in court that his request for your ID was NOT required by law (and therefore NOT a lawful order), you have a VERY strong "color of law" case for impeding your ability to travel under 42 USC 1983. Having this agent's own testimony in the court records should make it a slam-dunk.

The great thing about 1983 suits is four-fold:

1) you don't have to pay ANY court fees--the Feds prosecute, and foot the bill,

2) you are almost guaranteed to win if DOJ accepts the case, and you will almost certainly be awarded a tidy check for your troubles,

3) it sets a Case Precedent, that is nearly as powerful as Statutory law, and can be used by other law-abiding citizens when they get abused by out-of-control government "agents", and

4) the offending "officer" or "agent" has to pay the settlement out of his OWN pocket, because he is being sued as an INDIVIDUAL, not as a representative of the government, which sends a POWERFUL message to other uniformed thugs who may be tempted to abuse the People under color of law...

I'd highly recommend you look into a 1983 filing. You could cover your legal fees from the previous case, AND send a strong message to the TSA that this sort of lawless thuggery will NOT be tolerated by the People any longer...

Again, congrats on your victory, and thanks for being so brave and tenacious during tour trials and tribulations!
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.

Being required to show "papers" such as a passport at border crossings, is neither a search nor a seizure. By "papers" our Founding Fathers were talking about the personal files and documents of its citizens, not passports which are official government documents issued by the government for the government's purposes.
 
Last edited:

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
My point is that the TSA is going to lawfully subject you to one intrusion or the other. Why opt for the greater intrusion?

If your only concern is personal convenience, then your perspective makes sense.

I believe you've gone through the headaches of 4th Amendment violations over OC. Was it worth it?

This may not be OC, but the 4th Amendment is no less important in this circumstance than in any other. This kind of crap needs a spotlight on it. Bending over doesn't shine a spotlight anywhere but up your ass.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If your only concern is personal convenience, then your perspective makes sense.

I believe you've gone through the headaches of 4th Amendment violations over OC. Was it worth it?

This may not be OC, but the 4th Amendment is no less important in this circumstance than in any other. [Pointless vulgarity removed.]

My concern is not only personal convenience.

I shall endeavor to make my point again and to point out the context. I thought about quoting the half-a-dozen or so posts, but that started to get cumbersome. If you want to see the context for yourself, read the whole thread before picking a post to respond to out of context.

Someone posted a link to the story of a man who was forced to fly without ID (because he lost it). The point being made was that it was possible (and well within TSA policy) to do so. This story was used to advocate routinely choosing to go through the alternative methods of identification that avoid showing ID.

Either way, the person is subjecting himself to personal intrusion by the TSA. If one is adamantly opposed to intrusion, he should be at least as adamantly opposed to the intrusive alternative as he is to the showing of ID! If one is simply wanting to minimize intrusion, showing ID is far less intrusive.

My point was that advocating using the alternative to showing ID would be silly if one is merely trying to avoid some intrusiveness. No, I did not speak from a rights POV because I thought it was intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that opting for an increased level of intrusion does not help end the intrusions into privacy by the TSA. They will just say, "OK," and proceed to poke and prod you.

However, if you think this will help press the point, feel free to choose not to show ID and subject yourself to crazy increases in the intrusion by the TSA. Yeah, that'll show them. *shakes head and moves on*
 
Top