Pixiq

Isn’t it so that when you purchase a ticket you enter into a contract with the airline. Part of that contract states that you must prove your ID? That’s how I figured it worked and how they can ask pretty much anything from a traveller within legal bounds. It’s not written in any law but it should be stated clearly on the ticket/at the airport. Correct me if I’m wrong but this is how I always thought it worked.

[Edit to add] Not showing your ID shouldn’t get you arrested though, you just shouldn’t be able to buy the ticket?

Heil Hitler… soon we will all finally reach Totalitarian USA… amen finally a government that will keep us safe and weed out these rebels…

Even if it is in the contract to show your id, that does not warrant arrest. At most, that would void the contract. So now the police are allowed to enforce contracts for private companies?
This is total crap. Maybe we can have real security instead of the illusion of security. Besides I would rather give up my security than my freedom.

@JR & @mepsipax With the laws that are currently on the books the only time you are required to show your ID at the airport, to gain entry into the sterile area, is if the TSA fails to return your Secure Flight information to the airline in time.

In that case and only in that case are you required by statute to show your ID and that is to the AIRLINE, not the TSA. (Title 49 § 1540.5 , § 1540.107 , §1560.105)

Click my name for an expanded explanation.

An airline can require ID. The real concern with airport ID requirements is when the *federal government* requires ID in order to travel. Americans have the right to travel freely between the states without “showing their papers” to the federal government. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wheeler#The_right_to_trave...

Confucious says…” Stick your head in lions mouth and head disappears.” (not really).
How intelligent was this maneuver.
This guy clearly came in with the intent to stir things up. Wonder if he also wraps cobras around his neck for fun to see if they bite.
Oh wait—-no , he probably wouldn’t, that wouldn’t make him any MONEY.After all that’s what it’s all about right. The American dream, to sue someone for your own personal gain. NO INTEGRITY and NO HONOR.

@ Lionesse What makes you think Phil went into this for anything more than to assert a right he already has?

Do you feel the same way when a photographer shoots in an area he knows will cause himself grief but he has the perfect right to shoot there?

What good are the rights we have if no one asserts them from time to time? How will we know if those rights have been taken away from us if the waters are never tested? By the time we actually need those dusty rights, they might be gone.

There is some truth in your words (Trollkiller)
however, it seems he was “researching” ahead of time and went into the situation with a game plan.Seems like this guy did this for financial gain. He may be legally within his boundaries.I guess he has the “right” to do it but it doesn’t make it RIGHT.RIGHT?

Oh wait, I am sure he did this only for the good of mankind —-and if that’s true he won’t seek any money for this endeavor. Right?

Lionesse

Why would a government impose fines on its citizens? For monetary gains? I think the government cashes in far more from “extorting” money from it’s citizens for not following the rules, than the citizens have ever received from the government not following the rules.
The use of fines is meant as a deterrent so that the offender and others hopefully will not repeat the offense.
In this case, the TSA has NEVER shown their authority in requiring ID to travel, yet continue to harass 20 million people everyday to perform a ritual that does absolutely nothing but prove people have IDs.
The TSA has been asked repeatedly to give some reasoning behind their (il)logic ID checks. They never have because there is none.
I hope that this case snowballs and the media gets wind, and that TSA will be exposed for the out of control agency that it is.
If Phil profits from it, I say GREAT!

@ Lionesse I think he should at least sue for enough to make him whole. He lost two days of freedom, extra night in the hotel, bail, airline tickets, attorney, lost time at work and other incidentals.

Why should he be financially penalized because HIS rights were violated.

I am sure you are not familiar with Phil so from your prospective it may look like he jumped up and decided to game the system for a payday.

I assure you that Phil has spent countless hours engaging the TSA, on their blog, via email, and at the airport in an attempt to make them follow the law. Phil has been flying without ID for a while now and I fully believe he did not expect to be arrested for following the law.

Lionesse,

I, for one, commend Phil Mocek for doing a bit of research (no need for scare quotes surrounding what should be a positive word); the TSA agents would have benefited from doing a little research before – and not after – the fact.

If he sues and the jury decides punitive damages are in order, he should be compensated. After all, Mr. Mocek was the one who was wronged. Not the airlines. Not the TSA. Not the Albuquerque P.D.

I definitely have a problem with our tax dollars being used to pay out lawsuits against incompetent public servants. However, the solution is to ensure competence among our civil servants, not bitch about people who assert their rights.

Lots of really good arguements.
Still can’t help but think that it’s all about the money. If it were done purely to “assert rights” then it would seem to be an admirable move.
Not bitching, just trying to focus on a truth from another perspective that seems to be pushed to the side. My personal opinion is when someone does something purely for financial gain it’s ugly to me no matter which way you twist it.

I commend Phil for what he has done & wish him well. It is our right to travel with out id.

@ Lionesse I don’t think that is the case with Phil. If it turns out I am wrong about the motive I will have no problem calling him out on it.

@Lionesse
Even if he were to get money out of the deal, it may be acting as a deterrent to the Gov’t from doing this in the future. I am sure what little he could get out of this instance would barely be enough to cover legal costs on his end and would end up costing the government more to defend than they would pay out. Legal precedence can be more important than money.

Lioness, how much of an “intelligent maneuver” is it to cooperate in the elimination of your own rights?

Phil Mocek’s legal defense fund: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=974...

It has really become too much trouble to travel in the US any longer. There are many more interesting places to go that don’t treat everyone like a terrorist.

Hmm, for not wanting to give TSA officers a glimpse of his identity, Mr. Mocek is sure not concealing it any longer. In fact, as a witness of this event, I can say that this gentleman appeared to arrive at the security checkpoint seeking attention and it would seem to the untrained eye, WANTING to be arrested. You are not the victim here, sir. Why should we pity someone so desperate to make a political point that he causes a disturbance by throwing an immature hissy fit, trying to snap pictures of people against their wishes? Would you want a stranger taking your photo, including your name where he would then do heaven-knows-what with it? Security personnel are people too, with families they care about and want to protect; just because you don’t care for the rules they enforce doesn’t mean they should not be treated with respect, especially if the are showing you that respect while carrying out their job duties at the same time. What you are alleging happened is ACTUALLY the slanted story, the very thing this website is supposedly against. Mr. Mocek was treated with dignity, which he did not reciprocate. It is a federal checkpoint. The goal there is safety and order first, thousands of passengers fly out everyday, including families with small children, elderly, disabled, people flying out on bereavement trips, and just people who would like to make their flight without incident and not be made to feel unsafe by a tempermental, possibly out-of-control passenger, who comes in with the express intent of being arrested so he can blog about it later. Get a real job.

“just because you don’t care for the rules they enforce doesn’t mean they should not be treated with respect”

How can you not care for a rule that doesn’t exist?

@sunshine Thanks for telling the TSA’s side of the story. In the future you should really leave things like this up to Blogger Bob as to avoid libelous statements.

As a witness to the event, in what manner did Phil “arrive at the security checkpoint seeking attention”? Was he doing handstands? Was he riding a unicycle?

As a witness to the event, in what manner did Phil display “WANTING to be arrested”? Did he walk up and punch someone? Did he drop his pants and moon everyone?

Requiring the TSA to follow the law that they wrote is no more seeking attention or wanting to be arrested than requiring any entity to follow the law.

You should really read the blogs you post on, if you had you would have realized that crying about someone taking a photograph when they have the legal right to do so would not gain any sympathy on this site.

If the TSA would simply stick to its mandated and Constitutionally protected narrow administrative searches for weapons, explosives and incendiaries none of this would have happened.

Face it, Phil called you guys out for breaking the law and all you can do is cry that your authority was questioned.

As for someone taking a picture of your name tag, well if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Since when is a federal (DHS) regulation not synonymous with a law (rule)? I am willing to overlook the fact that there are much bigger issues in the world than whether or not someone has to show ID to fly domestically, but do not insult the staffing of a whole organization, calling them “incompetent public servants” when you have no real grasp on the bigger picture or the reality of the events that occurred. Serve overseas in a terrorism-ravaged country, make it through one of their security checkpoints, and then you can talk about how your “rights” were violated. I suppose this country hasn’t been ravaged by terrorism, although I am sure that the victims and surviving family members of the 9-11 attacks will probably disagree with you. Maybe people should keep that in mind the next time they reach their destination with both feet safely on the ground instead of working themselves into a frenzy over the minute inconvenience of going through security to get there, which they cleverly disguise as political passion. Not buying that. I can’t recall any political activists in history with legitimate concerns actually attempting to gain financially from their troubles. Really, having characters like this representing your cause isn’t really beneficial to you. It’s just obnoxious.

A federal regulation is not synonymous with a law when that regulation, or more accurately in this case, a directive breaks the law.

I am sorry, but I have not read anywhere that Phil intends to sue for monetary damages due to this incident. Until he does you need to leave that accusation be.

@ Trollkiller—that is a really good point.
Wonder if there could have been a better way of
testing the laws in place. Perhaps through letter writing or some other means. If the law and the standard procedures are conflicting each other then perhaps that should be something to be looked into. Can’t help but wonder WHY someone would object to showing their identification. I’m sure one of you will fill me in. Another thought is that people fly without identification all the time and are just sent for extra screening so I am wondering ….what was different here???? Simply not presenting an I.D. as far as I know is really within the realm of allowable.

@ Lionesse The letter writing has been tried. I have personally brought this issue to Francine Kerner, TSA Chief Counsel, and Kip Hawley, then head of the TSA. I asked for any statute that would overturn or overrule the ones shown on my blog. Both were content with trying to justify it under Title 49 § 1540.107.

Unfortunately the only way to get the courts involved is someone has to be “injured”. Phil has been injured so hopefully he will get his day in court.

The difference in this case is the TSA has decided that the allowability of flying without ID is contingent on your attitude. If you willfully refuse to show ID the TSA will deny your entry into the sterile area. Phil did not bow to the TSO’s “authority”.

I object to showing the TSA my ID in order to fly and increasingly in order to take a bus, train, or cross a bridge being monitored by VIPR, is the fact I have the perfect right to the freedom of travel without undue burden by the Government. Basically they are acting Unconstitutionally. (before anyone hollers that the right to travel is not in the Constitution, the Courts have ruled otherwise)

The interesting thing about the TSA is the fact they failed to update the law to include ID verification as part of the definition for screening. When an entity does not take the logical and easy action, I have to wonder why. The only conclusion I can come up with is they know that forced ID verification is Unconstitutional.

Seriously why would you not add “and ID verification” to “Screening function means the inspection of individuals and property for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.” other than the fact the courts have only upheld the administrative search for weapons, explosives, and incendiaries.

Very educational and interesting.
Thanks for the insight.

@ Lionesse For more insight to the mind of the TSA on the ID issue look at the Fofana case. http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/Fofana.pdf (PDF WARNING)

Read it all, but pay particular attention to the part on page 6 marked FN4. If ID verification is important, Constitutional and legal, why would the TSA abandon “this novel argument in its
post-suppression hearing briefs”?

I can’t comment on the events of November 15 at this time, but here’s some of what I know about TSA’s airline passenger identification policies:

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, 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.

TSA’s airport passenger identification policy changed on 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. Back then, showing I.D. simply bought you a less- thorough search than you’d otherwise receive.

Beginning June 21, 2008: 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). 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.

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 and/or the hassle of providing convincing information in support of your claim to be who you say you are. This is a perfect 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 will look at someone with less scrutiny, making it easier for him to take weapons, explosives, or incendiaries past the security checkpoint.

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.

For more on showing I.D. in the general sense (and more specifically, why it’s bad for us to do so), please see the Identity Project’s “What’s Wrong With Showing ID?” page.

TSA airport I.D. policies are a relatively-frequent topic of discussion on Flyertalk Forums (a popular Web-based discussion service for frequent fliers). See the following threads for such discussion:

2008-04-08: Article:No ID needed to board plane
2008-05-01: new info from TSA re: airlines requesting ID
2008-05-01: does the law/courts say ID is not required to…
2008-06-06: Starting June 21: Refuse to Show ID, No Entry to Sterile Area
2008-06-09: Actually, it looks like you can still fly without ID
2008-06-11: TSA blog addresses the new airport ID rule
2008-06-20: TSA says new airport ID rule is not about control
2008-06-22: No ID – Reports from the Field
2008-06-23: Forget ID after 6/21: expect invasive ?s including political affiliation
2008-11-19: Are you kidding me: No ID
2009-05-01: What is the ID Policy?
2009-05-27: TSA SOP re: airport ID requirements provided to IDP via FOIA request
2009-07-20: Flying with expired license
2009-07-28: Do kids with seats (age 2-10) need ID?
2009-08-04: Expired Drivers licence + Temporary One -Can I fly?
2009-08-10: Has anyone had a problem without photo ID at the gate of Jetblue at JFK and MCO?
2009-10-30: How many times do I show my BP and ID at the checkpoint?
2009-11-09: Can I travel with my expired drivers license as ID?
2009-11-16: Flyer “Processed” (Arrested?) in NM After Declining to Show ID
2009-11-21: What happens if an ID is lost?
2009-11-22: No longer using passport as ID for TSA – here’s why
2009-11-28: Expired ID
2009-11-30: Damaged NY State License