Subject: Re: [Skywagons] The TSA and MTJ (Montrose, Colorado Airport)

I was speaking with Mark Heiner, formerly Aviat's long time test
pilot, in Afton today. Recently he flew his personal aircraft from WY
to MN, to go flight test Wipaire's higher gross weight amphibs for the
Husky. At a fuel stop in SD, there was a note for him to call someone
immediately -- it turned out to be a TSA guy that wanted to know the
purpose of his flight. Since when has TSA had the right to hassle
people flying within the US?

Can you imagine the public outcry if TSA started randomly stopping
motor vehicles?

George

On Mar 7, 2009, at 6:05 PM, Jim Hill wrote:

> I just spoke with a friend who is retired from the Secret Service,
> and now works for the TSA. He told me, after I told him about these
> events
> that "TSA creep" will be coming to a airfield near you, soon.

I hope he told the TSA guy to piss off and that it was none of his business!!!!!!!!!!!! Last I checked the TSA could not violate our Constitutional Rights??? Is the TSA immune from the Constitution?????

It looks like that gets you jailed.
Something is way wrong the last year.
The only advantage of getting old, is not seeing this all happen.

I hope he told the guy that the outfit he was working for was going to help ruin the country and it was sad that he was that desperate for a job. Hopefully if I was in the same situation, I wouldn't be intimidated, and would say the same thing.

I wonder if this is one of those "skirting the rule" deals. Actual peace officers, pipe in here if I am incorrect!
Scenario 1
If a cop pulls you over, and asks to see your drivers license, he needs proboble cause (ie- you needed to have done something wrong).
Scenario 2
If you are parked on a parking lot, and an officer pulls up beside you and walks to your window. You roll down your window, and the officer says," you got any ID?" You then show him your drivers license, and you have volunteered that information. He did not command (maybe the wrong word) you to roll down your window or give up your license, you did that on your own. You could have ignored him standing at your window, yah I know- fat chance, or when he asked if you have id, you say "yes", and gave him nothing while looking at him with on your face.
Is it horse @&^%, you bet, but legal I believe.

So if GumpAir is flying to the Idoho backcountry via Reno, and I want to meet him in Idaho and give him advice on flying (lots of sarcasm here, plaese read "I have a bottle of 80 proof I want to share and hear some good stories around a camp fire") and I leave a note at the fuel pump in Reno saying to call me, is this the same thing? I don't think so either, but I bet the TSA guy does.

PS- I am not a TSA guy, so if you see a note left by me, you now know the purpose of my flight.

Dokmow,

I am a police officer and this kind of crap the TSA is pulling is way out of line. I have been in Law Enforcement for over14 years. I wonder what would happen if someone told the TSA to piss off in the above situation.

Scenario 1,
Yes, a police officer has to have probable cause to pull you over. If he has PC then you are required to give him your driver's license. Not necessarily 'done' something wrong but maybe an equipment violation, but there needs to be something for the PC. A police officer can always ask the driver where he is going but the driver is NOT required to answer.

Scenario 2,
If the officer has no PC then you are not required to even speak to him let alone give him your ID. This goes for a search on a traffic stop, you are not required to let the officer search unless he has a search warrant.

Now keep in mind I do my job within the rules, I do not break them just to do my job or to get someone. I know there are officers who do break or bend the rules. Just like there will be TSA guys that do the same. The thing is most people let officers search because they do not know any better. Just like TSA they will try to intimidate or pressure people into giving in.

On a traffic stop I will ask to search a car, if the driver says no, then I say thank you and walk away. There are times when I can search without a warrant and I do not need consent from the driver. But I have to articulate why I did what I did. It seems the TSA does not have to answer to anybody at all. So if their power goes unchecked we are all in trouble.



Here is a question for all of you. Let me know what you think.


If I contact a guy walking down the street at 2am and I ask him for his ID and he tells me to got to hell and then walks away from me. What can I do to him as a police Officer?

They just had a story in the local news, a Canadian guy was crossing the border into the US and the border patrol/ICE/whatever officer was apparently rude to him. He asked/told the officer to say "please" & got a snootfull of mace for his trouble. Hard to tell just who needed an attitude adjustment, probably both, but the Canadian guy got detained for several hours before they cut him loose. I bet he won't be coming down here again any time soon.

Eric

pif_sonic wrote:Dokmow,

I am a police officer and this kind of crap the TSA is pulling is way out of line. I have been in Law Enforcement for over14 years. I wonder what would happen if someone told the TSA to piss off in the above situation.

Scenario 1,
Yes, a police officer has to have probable cause to pull you over. If he has PC then you are required to give him your driver's license. Not necessarily 'done' something wrong but maybe an equipment violation, but there needs to be something for the PC. A police officer can always ask the driver where he is going but the driver is NOT required to answer.

Scenario 2,
If the officer has no PC then you are not required to even speak to him let alone give him your ID. This goes for a search on a traffic stop, you are not required to let the officer search unless he has a search warrant.

Now keep in mind I do my job within the rules, I do not break them just to do my job or to get someone. I know there are officers who do break or bend the rules. Just like there will be TSA guys that do the same. The thing is most people let officers search because they do not know any better. Just like TSA they will try to intimidate or pressure people into giving in.

On a traffic stop I will ask to search a car, if the driver says no, then I say thank you and walk away. There are times when I can search without a warrant and I do not need consent from the driver. But I have to articulate why I did what I did. It seems the TSA does not have to answer to anybody at all. So if their power goes unchecked we are all in trouble.



Here is a question for all of you. Let me know what you think.


If I contact a guy walking down the street at 2am and I ask him for his ID and he tells me to got to hell and then walks away from me. What can I do to him as a police Officer?

Hi Wayne,

As you know in most states under Carroll v. United States and subsequent cases ad nauseum officers don't need a search warrant to search a vehicle, they simply need requisite probable cause. Also, there are several other ways which a LEO can search a vehicle without even probable cause. Of course you know that, but it seemed a little unclear in your post above.

But more on point, while I am extremely uncomfortable with the info that is coming out about the TSA in the last week or two regarding the TSA security directive, I fail to see how being telephoned up and asked a question violates my Constitutional rights Now, telling someone to bugger off might or might not be in order for the situation but since most TSA regulations are civil in nature, probable cause would likely have nothing to do with what happens then - just like how PC has no place in the FAA lexicon when the FSDO is investigating a violation of the FARs.

Which is what is so disturbing about what has happened. With the TSA making all these >civil< violations there is a much lower standard they have to meet to hang you with a fine.

pif_sonic wrote:If I contact a guy walking down the street at 2am and I ask him for his ID and he tells me to got to hell and then walks away from me. What can I do to him as a police Officer?

Nothing, I hope, without probable cause. Judging from my interaction with you, you have high integrity, but I wouldn't expect the same from many LEO's. I'd expect an LEO to fabricate a probable cause, because simply asking a guy for his ID without PC in the first place suggests intent of harassment.

So whats the answer?

1SeventyZ wrote:

pif_sonic wrote:If I contact a guy walking down the street at 2am and I ask him for his ID and he tells me to got to hell and then walks away from me. What can I do to him as a police Officer?

Nothing, I hope, without probable cause. Judging from my interaction with you, you have high integrity, but I wouldn't expect the same from many LEO's. I'd expect an LEO to fabricate a probable cause, because simply asking a guy for his ID without PC in the first place suggests intent of harassment.

So whats the answer?

This is very state specific. In general, barring more conservative (liberal?) laws or court decisions in your state:

From 2004:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.

The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.

The decision was a defeat for privacy rights advocates who argued that the government could use this power to force people who have done nothing wrong, other than catch the attention of police, to divulge information that may be used for broad database searches.

Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine part of detective work, including efforts to get information about terrorists.

The justices upheld a Nevada cattle rancher's misdemeanor conviction. He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn't have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000.

Larry "Dudley" Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote.

Justices agreed in a unique ruling that addresses just what's in a name.

The ruling was a follow-up to a 1968 decision that said police may briefly detain someone on reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, without the stronger standard of probable cause, to get more information. Justices said that during such brief detentions, known as Terry stops after the 1968 ruling, people must answer questions about their identities.

Justices had been asked to rule that forcing someone to give police their name violated a person's Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that that it violated neither.

"Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests," Kennedy wrote.

This thread is blurring the line between TSA and the police. Rarely does a TSA official have what people term "law enforcement" powers i.e. powers of arrest, carry a sidearm, etc. Mostly they are enforcing civil laws and sanctions, or referring cases to those who are LEOs for further followup. Much in the way a FAA inspector "enforces" the FARs.

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:
Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine part of detective work, including efforts to get information about terrorists.

It is interesting how often the word terrorists gets thrown into the mix.
How many of you with a badge have ever dealt with a terrorist? (the type of terrorist that is the cause of the new level of security that we face).

bcpstudent wrote:

once&futr_alaskaflyer wrote:
Police, meanwhile, had argued that identification requests are a routine part of detective work, including efforts to get information about terrorists.

It is interesting how often the word terrorists gets thrown into the mix.
How many of you with a badge have ever dealt with a terrorist? (the type of terrorist that is the cause of the new level of security that we face).

I think that part of the argument was truly mind-numbing, and would happily ear flick the lawyer who brought it up. Of course the article really doesn't say who said it, could have been an intervener to the case not from Nevada. I suppose they were going for the everything but the kitchen sink argument.

To answer your question: In eighteen years on the job in three agencies - more than once. But their name wasn't Abdullah.