• 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

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/25/passenger_acquitted/

SNIP

Passenger cleared after TSA checkpoint stare-down
Alert PrintRetweetFacebookMan fought the law and the law man won

By Dan Goodin • Get more from this author

Posted in ID, 25th January 2011 22:27 GMT

A Seattle man has been acquitted of all charges brought against him when he refused to show ID to TSA officials and videotaped the incident at an airport security checkpoint.

Prosecutors' case against Phil Mocek was so weak that he was found not guilty without testifying or calling a single witness, the Papers, Please! blog reported. The Daily Conservative said Friday's acquittal was the first time anyone has “successfully challenged the TSA’s assumed authority to question and detain travelers.”

Mocek's video, shot in November 2009 at the Albuquerque International Airport, portrays a passenger politely refusing officers' request that he show ID and stop videotaping his encounter with them.

“Is there a problem with using a camera in the airport in publicly – in publicly accessible areas?” Mocek calmly asks.

“Yes, there is,” an officer answers.

. . .

But as the six-woman jury in New Mexico's Arizona's Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court made clear, Mocek isn't in trouble. They returned not guilty verdicts for charges that included concealing his identity, refusing to obey a lawful order, trespassing, and disorderly conduct.

Papers, Please! says the acquittal proves what TSA critics have said all along: That checkpoint staff have no police powers, that contrary to TSA claims, passengers have the right to fly without providing ID, and yes, passengers are free to video record checkpoints as long as images on screening monitors aren't captured.

“Annoying the TSA is not a crime,” the blog post states. “Photography is not a crime. You have the right to fly without ID, and to photograph, film, and record what happens.”

Here's hoping all the grunts in the blue shirts get the memo.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
He was acquitted by a jury. I am afraid the next person who stands up will not be so lucky. It would be better if there had been a ruling on the law that made the charges go away.

This case also does not answer the question of whether the man would have (or should have) been allowed to board without showing his ID.

I am unfamiliar with NM law. Is concealing ID a crime? If so, what would constitute it?

In AL, even if we are being arrested, we don't have to show ID. At most, the officers, with RAS of a crime, may demand our name and address (and, this is silly, an explanation of our actions). How does it work in NM.

BTW, good on this guy for being willing to suffer the hassle for standing up for himself.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
My one question is, we may have the right to fly without showing ID (happens on charter flights all the time), how might an average commercial flight passenger actually, as a practical matter, board one's plane without having shown a TSA goon ID?
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
My one question is, we may have the right to fly without showing ID (happens on charter flights all the time), how might an average commercial flight passenger actually, as a practical matter, board one's plane without having shown a TSA goon ID?

When I was younger I used to fly back and forth from Hawaii all the time without ever showing ID, and I bought 2nd hand tickets all the time used to be able to buy tickets from the paper, just show up and fly.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
He was acquitted by a jury. I am afraid the next person who stands up will not be so lucky. It would be better if there had been a ruling on the law that made the charges go away.

This case also does not answer the question of whether the man would have (or should have) been allowed to board without showing his ID.

I am unfamiliar with NM law. Is concealing ID a crime? If so, what would constitute it?

In AL, even if we are being arrested, we don't have to show ID. At most, the officers, with RAS of a crime, may demand our name and address (and, this is silly, an explanation of our actions). How does it work in NM.

BTW, good on this guy for being willing to suffer the hassle for standing up for himself.

Hiibel vs. Nevada, no ID required. And a good case that supports your other statements.

As of yet I don't think any requirements to carry ID is in effect anywhere in U.S. California statue that required it was struck down as "vague".
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
When I was younger I used to fly back and forth from Hawaii all the time without ever showing ID, and I bought 2nd hand tickets all the time used to be able to buy tickets from the paper, just show up and fly.

Sure, but I just don't quite understand the following remark:

Papers, Please! says the acquittal proves what TSA critics have said all along: That checkpoint staff have no police powers, that contrary to TSA claims, passengers have the right to fly without providing ID, and yes, passengers are free to video record checkpoints as long as images on screening monitors aren't captured.

Doesn't seem to be practically true today.
 

AmbushBug

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Hiibel vs. Nevada, no ID required. And a good case that supports your other statements.

As of yet I don't think any requirements to carry ID is in effect anywhere in U.S. California statue that required it was struck down as "vague".

Hiibel lost his case. Nevada state law requires a suspect to "identify themselves," stating one's name is sufficient per an earlier Nevada Supreme Court ruling.
 

XDSTEEL

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
216
Location
North Dakota
clear some stuff up

The Nevada case said that a person has to ID themselvs when there IS a Terry like stop. Idenity though can be said. No ID has to be produced. So saying "I am John Smith" would satisfy the requirement. Anything else like Bday and home is not required. Look it up it is online. This case applies to STOP AND ID STATES!! if your state doesn't have one then I would not worry until you travel through one

ID to board the Airplane is NOT a TSA policy, however, I don't know what state law says. Here is a Link to the Audio and a letter written from a state representative to the TSA Director and his reply.

http://www.opencarryradio.com/?p=974
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Hiibel vs. Nevada, no ID required. And a good case that supports your other statements.

As of yet I don't think any requirements to carry ID is in effect anywhere in U.S. California statue that required it was struck down as "vague".

Careful there. The case, Kolender vs Lawson, did not strike down a law requiring carrying ID. The law did not require such. The law required a person to give credible identity to a cop without saying what was credible, allowing cops too much latitude to cite a violation. Vague for not telling a suspect what he must do to satisfy the statute, what kinds of identity would satisfy the statute.

Kolender v Lawson:

We conclude § 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute.We conclude § 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/461/352/case.html


Just as a side note, I have seen at least one state statute that satisfied Kolender by specifying that a suspect must show a state issued ID or drivers license, if he has one on him at the time.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The Nevada case said that a person has to ID themselvs when there IS a Terry like stop. Idenity though can be said. No ID has to be produced. So saying "I am John Smith" would satisfy the requirement. Anything else like Bday and home is not required. Look it up it is online. This case applies to STOP AND ID STATES!! if your state doesn't have one then I would not worry until you travel through one

ID to board the Airplane is NOT a TSA policy, however, I don't know what state law says. Here is a Link to the Audio and a letter written from a state representative to the TSA Director and his reply.

http://www.opencarryradio.com/?p=974

Wow. Showing ID would be less intrusive than what that passenger went through. And the ten minutes saved at security were easily eaten up by all the other stuff the traveler had to do.

No thanks.

Oh, and the letter is out of date. It has at least one inaccuracy. Depending upon the specific method of screening chosen by the TSA for a passenger, the passenger may opt out. That part of the letter being incorrect throws the rest of the letter into question.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Hiibel lost his case. Nevada state law requires a suspect to "identify themselves," stating one's name is sufficient per an earlier Nevada Supreme Court ruling.

Exactly no ID was required. I was showing that in Nevada it is not required.

Careful there. The case, Kolender vs Lawson, did not strike down a law requiring carrying ID. The law did not require such. The law required a person to give credible identity to a cop without saying what was credible, allowing cops too much latitude to cite a violation. Vague for not telling a suspect what he must do to satisfy the statute, what kinds of identity would satisfy the statute.


Just as a side note, I have seen at least one state statute that satisfied Kolender by specifying that a suspect must show a state issued ID or drivers license, if he has one on him at the time.

Yes again you are more precise, but the police were interpreting this law as they must show credible ID, as in show me your papers.

I like this opinion by JUSTICE BRENNAN:

I would hold that this statute violates the Fourth Amendment. [Footnote 2/1] Merely to facilitate the general law enforcement objectives of investigating and preventing unspecified crimes, States may not authorize the arrest and criminal prosecution of an individual for failing to produce identification or further information on demand by a police officer.

What state is that? And is it only if you are carrying? I carry sterile so would that effect me? Of course the stop would still have to have RAS.
 
Last edited:

XDSTEEL

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
216
Location
North Dakota
Wow. Showing ID would be less intrusive than what that passenger went through. And the ten minutes saved at security were easily eaten up by all the other stuff the traveler had to do.

No thanks.

Oh, and the letter is out of date. It has at least one inaccuracy. Depending upon the specific method of screening chosen by the TSA for a passenger, the passenger may opt out. That part of the letter being incorrect throws the rest of the letter into question.

Looked Up the TSA "policy" ( yes in quotations) And it still pretty much states that you don't have to ( my interpretation). HOWEVER, like you said you save a lot of "hassle" to getting to the gate if you show your ID but its the principle of the thing. (LOL). They basically check the boarding pass to see if it is ligitement.( i think i spelled that right?) and the additional screening

Here is the link to the "policy" http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/agents.shtm

and the Travel Document Checker (TDC)
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/layers/tdc/index.shtm

( need to read policy first before TDC)
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
The Nevada case said that a person has to ID themselvs when there IS a Terry like stop. Idenity though can be said. No ID has to be produced. So saying "I am John Smith" would satisfy the requirement. Anything else like Bday and home is not required. Look it up it is online. This case applies to STOP AND ID STATES!! if your state doesn't have one then I would not worry until you travel through one


Fellas,

Please make it easy on the new folks. Provide a link and/or a quote.

And, try to stick very close to the concept of the case if you are going to make a declaration. While XDSteel is pretty close, he is far enough imprecise that a new reader unfamiliar with the case can come away with a wrong impression. A new reader who does not realize the legal trouble possible can get himself in trouble.

What Hiibel really said is that Nevada's stop-and-identify statute is constitutional. It did not say identity can be verbal as though to invalidate statutes in other states with identity document language. The case did not say no ID has to be produced as though to invalidate statutes in other states with identity document language.

If you are a new reader, you need to look up your state's stop-and-indentify statute, or confirm that there is no such statute in your state. I have seen at least one state statute that compelled showing an identity document during a detention. The statute specified the types of identity documents required--drivers license and (state ID card?)--and said something to the effect "if the suspect has those with him at the time of detention." Other states may have similar language in their statute.

Hiibel vs 6th Judicial District Court: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZO.html
 
Last edited:

pmocek

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
4
Location
Seattle, Washington, United States
Hi, everyone. Thanks for your interest.

My one question is, we may have the right to fly without showing ID (happens on charter flights all the time)

The “public right of freedom of transit” by air is guaranteed by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and the TSA is required by Federal law (49 USC § 40101) to consider this right when it issues regulations. Freedom of movement is required in order for us to exercise our right to assemble, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of movement is also guaranteed by Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty signed and ratified by the United States.

Quoting United States Code TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION > SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS > PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY > subpart i—general > CHAPTER 401—GENERAL PROVISIONS > § 40101. Policy:

(c) General Safety Considerations. — In carrying out subpart III of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart III, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall consider the following matters:

(1) the requirements of national defense and commercial and general aviation.
(2) the public right of freedom of transit through the navigable airspace.

how might an average commercial flight passenger actually, as a practical matter, board one's plane without having shown a TSA goon ID?

The same way you'd board it if you had shown ID. I did this for several years. See "If truth be told, you don't always need ID for domestic flights," by Scott Canon and Mike Rice, Kansas City Star (republished by Seattle Times), April 14, 2008.

When I was younger I used to fly back and forth from Hawaii all the time without ever showing ID, and I bought 2nd hand tickets all the time used to be able to buy tickets from the paper, just show up and fly.

Lots of people did that. Quoting the Identity Project's "What's wrong with showing ID?" page:

The custom of showing ID at airports came about in July of 1996, in the wake of the TWA flight 800 disaster. Faulty fuel tank insulation caused TWA 800 to explode over Long Island Sound. Before we knew that, there was concern that terrorists had blown up the plane. According to former terrorism czar Richard Clarke's book, the ID requirement was instituted as a temporary measure so that then-President Clinton had something to announce to the families of the victims when he met with them. After the 2001 World Trade Center bombings, the ID requirement became mandatory, as anyone who has flown since can testify.

Wow. Showing ID would be less intrusive than what that passenger went through.

Yeah, wow, huh? They arrested me at about 2:30, transfered me from the airport police station to the downtown jail around 4:00, out to the county jail around 5:00, dressed me out and put me in a cell around 9:00pm, and arraigned me at 9:00am the next morning. Bail was posted around 5:00pm, and I was released downtown about 10:00pm. I stayed in Albuquerque a couple extra nights. I don't fly any more (not since TSA started pulling people out for radiation or groping), so I took the train to Albuquerque from my home in Seattle (3 day trip) for trial -- twice. People I care about were stressed out while this dragged on for 14 months. My legal fees, which I'm paying out-of-pocket, came to about $34,000 (roughly $5000 of that has been covered by donations of nearly 100 people to my legal defense fund).

This case also does not answer the question of whether the man would have (or should have) been allowed to board without showing his ID.

The TSA officer who the state called as a witness at my trial testified that ID is not required, and that people do it all the time. You can listen to audio of his testimony (tracks 5 and 6 http://www.archive.org/details/StateOfNewMexicoV.PhillipMocek

I am unfamiliar with NM law. Is concealing ID a crime?

Yes. I was charged with the following misdemeanors:

  • criminal trespass (Albuquerque Code of Ordinances § 12-2-3)
  • resisting, obstructing or refusing to obey a lawful order of an officer (§ 12-2-19)
  • concealing identity with intent to obstruct, intimidate, hinder or interrupt (§ 12-2-16)
  • disorderly conduct (NMSA § 30-2-1)

If so, what would constitute it?

§ 12-2-16 CONCEALING IDENTITY.

It is unlawful for anyone to conceal one's true name or identity or disguise oneself with the intent to obstruct due execution of the law or with the intent to intimidate, hinder or interrupt any public officer, police officer, or any other person in the legal performance of his or her duties.

In order for me to be required to identify myself, the cop would need to have had reasonable suspicion that I violated the law in the first place, but he didn't.

BTW, good on this guy for being willing to suffer the hassle for standing up for himself.

Thanks!

--
Phil
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Welcome to the forum PMOCEK! Glad to hear the story straight from the source. Am glad you stood up for yourself. I'd love to fly with not ID, since I pretty much carry sterile every where else I go.

We've had several instances here in Washington (myself included) were we refused to proved ID to LEO when they had no RAS.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Phil,

Welcome. Thanks for taking the time to address our speculations.

The person about whom I made the comment, "Wow. Showing ID would be less intrusive than what that passenger went through," was not you. It was the person who had his wallet stolen. I assume the hoops he jumped through were the ones that the article "If truth be told, you don't always need ID for domestic flights" listed. No doubt, if you regularly fly without ID, you have to jump through those hoops each time.

My point was that the additional hassles of trying to fly without ID are more intrusive than the requirement for ID. Trust me, I am not advocating for intrusiveness. I just can't understand avoiding one unreasonable level of intrusiveness by deliberately choosing to suffer an increased level of intrusiveness!
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
eye95:

In Reference to a Question that You Posted on This Forum:

Question: I am Unfamiliar with [New Mexican] Law...., is Concealing [Identity] a Crime...?

Answer: Under New Mexican State Law 30-22-3: Concealing Identity Consists of Concealing One's True Name or Identity, or Disguising Oneself[,] with Intent to Obstruct The Due Execution of The Law or with Intent to Intimidate, Hinder[,] or Interrupt any Public Officer or any other Person in a Legal Performance of His Duty or The Exercise of His Rights under The Laws of The United States or of [The State of New Mexico].

Whoever Commits Concealing Identity is Guilty of a Petty Misdemeanor.

aadvark

*** Open Carry in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Notice Sheriff Deputies Demand for Identification:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltFgs8gvEWo&playnext=1&list=PL73F0C6E1BFEEA975 ***

*** Open Carry in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Notice Police Demands for Identification:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_756076&v=8BwQQSo9YX4 ***
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If OC is legal and you do not show ID when requested/ordered to do so, and then get hassled, cuffed and stuffed, illegally of course, carrying and then voluntarily providing ID when requested/ordered to do so would be a lower level of intrusiveness. Why would anyone ever not comply with a LEOs request/order to produce ID or any other request/order when there may be no legal requirement to do so?

+10 to you Phil

Not an apt analogy. In the case of not showing an officer an ID and being arrested, one would be substituting one level of unlawful intrusion for a higher level of unlawful intrusion.

The TSA may lawfully request ID. If you lawfully refuse to show ID, they will lawfully submit you to a much more intrusive, but still lawful search.

[Note, I am saying "lawful," not "constitutional." I am not trying to discuss the constitutionality of the request for ID or the resulting search for refusing. I don't think they are constitutional.]

My point is that the TSA is going to lawfully subject you to one intrusion or the other. Why opt for the greater intrusion?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
eye95:

In Reference to a Question that You Posted on This Forum:

Question: I am Unfamiliar with [New Mexican] Law...., is Concealing [Identity] a Crime...?

Answer: Under New Mexican State Law 30-22-3: Concealing Identity Consists of Concealing One's True Name or Identity, or Disguising Oneself[,] with Intent to Obstruct The Due Execution of The Law or with Intent to Intimidate, Hinder[,] or Interrupt any Public Officer or any other Person in a Legal Performance of His Duty or The Exercise of His Rights under The Laws of The United States or of [The State of New Mexico].

Whoever Commits Concealing Identity is Guilty of a Petty Misdemeanor.

aadvark

*** Open Carry in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Notice Sheriff Deputies Demand for Identification:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltFgs8gvEWo&playnext=1&list=PL73F0C6E1BFEEA975 ***

*** Open Carry in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Notice Police Demands for Identification:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_756076&v=8BwQQSo9YX4 ***

The problem here stems from the use of ID as an abbreviation for both identity and identity card. The law makes no mention of documentation of identity, just identity. Court rulings have made it clear that "identity" means something along the lines of name and address, which can be shared verbally. Officers cite the law using abbreviating "identity" as "ID," and then assuming that "ID" means "ID card."

To have broken that law, Mr. Mocek would have had to refuse to share his name with the TSA agent. It was on his ticket. Or, that name would have to have been false. We now know that is not the case. Or, he would have to have been wearing a mask, hiding his face. By now, we'd know if he were wearing a gorilla mask.

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