Video by Phil Mocek of his encounter with TSA at Albuquerque airport

[JohnyCanuck]

Run time: 03:39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5DBUK1K8M   Posted on YouTube: January 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: pmocek Views on YouTube: 878   Posted on DU: January 23, 2011 By DU Member: JohnyCanuck Views on DU: 3328

 
From the Youtube description:
Video recording made by Phil Mocek at Albuquerque International Airport, just outside the TSA barricade, on November 15, 2009, from approximately 2:34 p.m. - 2:38 p.m. Mountain time. This video was presented by the prosecution in State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court on January 20, 2011.

Visible and audible in the video are Mocek, Albuquerque Airport Police Department officers Robert F. "Bobby" Dilley (116), Landrow "Wiggy" Wiggins (137), and Julio A. De La Peña (135), and TSA staff LTSO Jonathon Breedon, TSM Gerald Romero, STSO Anthony M. Schreiner, Greg Martinez, and BDO Laura Moots.

See also this thread in GD:

Jury Finds Phil Mocek Not Guilty of All Charges From TSA Arrest
By Keegan Hamilton, Sat., Jan. 22 2011 @ 12:40PM

After an hour of deliberation Friday evening, a Bernalillo County, New Mexico jury found Phil Mocek not guilty of all four charges he faced after refusing to show his ID and using a video recorder at a TSA checkpoint in 2009. If you're keeping score at home, that's Mocek: 1, TSA:

According to Edward Hasbrouck of the Identity Project, Mocek did not testify, and the defense rested on Friday without calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence. Hasbrouck attended the trial; he writes: The jury found that even without rebuttal, the TSA and Albuquerque police had failed to satisfy their burden of proving any of the four charges: concealing his identity, refusing to obey a lawful order (it was never entirely clear whether this was supposed to have been an order to turn off his camera, an order to leave the airport despite having a valid ticket, or an order to show ID, none of which would have been lawful orders), trespassing, and disorderly conduct.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x254696

[SheilaT]

1. Good. We need more citizens

willing to stand up for their rights.

It is complete and utter bullshit that you can't use a recording device in a public area. All of these people who tell us we can't, and arrest people like Phil Mocek, are just petty tyrants.

I hope Mocek got some kind of damages from the TSA, even if just covering his legal costs and some relatively trivial sum of money, such as a thousand dollars or less.

[SDuderstadt]

3. You can't think of a good reason not to allow...

recording devices at a federal security checkpoint?

Really?

[SheilaT]

4. No, I cannot.

What could possibly be occurring that shouldn't be made public? Other than the strong-arm tactics of the TSA, in which case your question was intended ironically.

Free expression and a free press -- of which recording devices at security checkpoints count in my humble opinion -- are the basis of a free society. Sadly, way too many out there think it's okay to give up our freedoms, one by one.

When the old Soviet Union was still around, we'd have been outraged at this kind of thing there.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Really?

You don't think people who want to defeat checkpoint security would aided by a video?

I cherish our rights and freedoms. I also cherish my plane not being hijacked or blown up. The objective should be achieving the highest degree of safety with the least infringement of rights.

I'd be interested in where someone who thinks the TSA is out of hand believes that point is. I fly frequently and feel we are a good distance from that point.

[SheilaT]

31. Oh, yes. Every single person who

flies is a terrorist until proven otherwise. Every single person who videos anything at all is probably aiding terrorists.

I seriously doubt that anyone who actually wants to defeat checkpoint security needs a video to do so.

[SDuderstadt]

32. I'm sorry...

I believe the U.S. has a compelling interest in not letting security procedures be filmed, especially when those procedures continue to evolve.

One of the problems I have with this incident is that at least one news account stated Mocek did not have valid ID. Another article (if not the same one) states that Mocek believes he should be able to travel by air "anonymously". If so, I think it's more than unclear as to what role Mocek himself played in the event being triggered.

For once, I wish that DU's "shoot-first, ask-questions-later" brigade would postpone conclusions until they have all the facts, for a change.

[SheilaT]

55. It's not as though what happens at the security

check-point is any kind of deep secret. If it were, or needed to be, we'd all need to be blindfolded as we passed through.

It's not as though every single time someone decides to "test" security checkpoints various banned things get through. And meanwhile, I can't bring a simple nail clippers or a full sized bottle of contact lens solution because, well, you never know. Which is just magic thinking.

[demwing]

60. I think you're wrong. The REAL objective should be

maintaining the highest degree of civil rights while sacrificing the least degree of safety.

[greiner3]

6. Ah;

Besides the answer already posted, I can think of many reasons why I for one would like to have and use recording devices at a federal checkpoint.

So my rights were not further abused
So I have a record of the proceedings
So I have proof of the identities of the personal who detained me
For shits and giggles
For posterity sake
Because I can
Because it is not against the law
Because it is not against the Constitution (anymore this is not the same as above)
For a souvenir for my children and grandchildren
As a video I can share on Youtube/DU
So I can get another response from you as stated above
More proof the US is no longer the home of the free and the brave
Validation for emigration

Sorry, that's all I can come up with in 5 minutes or so. I'll check back later.

[SDuderstadt]

9. So...

the TSA is prevented from promulgating and implementing rules and regulations? They have the force of law.

[LibDemAlways]

26. The TSA is not a law enforcement agency. As illustrated in the video

they can summon police, but they cannot arrest anybody.

[SDuderstadt]

27. I didn't say...

they did.

[LibDemAlways]

30. You said they have "the force of law." They are only empowered to harrass and

be a pain in the ass to the flying public. They cannot arrest anybody.

[SDuderstadt]

33. "They" refers to the rules and...

regulations.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. I can think of plenty of reasons dreamed up by authoritarian fraidy-cat boot-lickers.

How 'bout you? What's your reason(s)?

[SDuderstadt]

10. "authoritarian fraidy-cat bootlickers"

LOL.

I'd love to see a security system devised by one of you guys.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. For starters, it wouldn't include porcine flunkies who ...

... don't know basic law and are prone to fake police reports (bogus disorderly conduct charges).

Those people would get the boot. Out the door. Do not pass go.

Hey, if it floats your boat to have cops make up "concealing identity" laws on the run then, have at it, Haus.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jjewell]

13. Founding Father Benjamin Franklin said...

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither..."

[SDuderstadt]

15. Yeah, yeah, yeah...

I doubt that Franklin would agree that your liberty trumps the right of the rest of us not to have our plane hijacked or blown up.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jjewell]

18. Actually...

Franklin was referring to AMERICAN liberty, which is Freedom versus Coercion, and YES, as the Founding Father succinctly made clear, Liberty Trumps Security. If you give up your Liberty to gain Security, you deserve Neither, which is why you seem to be quaking in your boots right now.

[SDuderstadt]

19. "quaking in your boots"

You would know this how, dude?

[jjewell]

20. Well...

One: You support the actions of the TSA in the video, (who acted like jack-booted thugs in my opinion), even though a trial by jury found that the defendant had broken no laws, and was in fact exercising Constitutionally protected rights.

Two: You'd obviously submit to a violation of YOUR Constitutionally protected rights without protest if placed in the same situation as the defendant, giving up "liberty" in the name of "security".

Three: You seem overly concerned about being blown up by terrorists in an airplane, even though statistically, you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident, dying of heat exhaustion, dying from falling off a toilet, or dying from being legally executed.

When I put that all together, yeah, it SEEMS like you're "quaking in your boots". Of course I
could be wrong... ;-)

[SDuderstadt]

21. "jack-booted thugs "

Oh, please. Have you ever actualy seen a "jack-booted thug"?

If I was in Mocek's shoes, it would never have gotten to that point. For example, what preceded where the video starts?

Your post is just one big strawman.

[jjewell]

22. LOL!!!

Hell, I've never seen a live blue whale, but I know what one is, so what's your point there?

Your other statement makes my point: In Mocek's shoes, you would have complied with illegal
orders given in violation of your Constitutional rights in your,(imo), "frightened" preference
for "security" over "liberty".

What difference does it make what preceded where the video starts? The case has been adjudicated.
The TSA was in the wrong, and Mocek was within his rights.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Are you really suggesting that the TSA can't...

require a passenger to produce their driver's license to be able to board a plane? That's some sort of draconian violation of our rights?

Please stop with your hyperbole and strawman arguments. Let me actually take a position before you presume to take issue with it.

P.S. You don't have the slightest idea what a jack-booted thugs is, dude.

[jjewell]

24. Speaking of Strawmen...

Please point out where I suggested that the TSA can't require a passenger
to produce ID to be able to board a plane, or where I stated that such a
requirement is a "draconian violation of our rights". Also, could you please
provide the time-stamp on the video where Mocek was actually in the process,
or attempting to board a plane without showing ID?

Thanks. I didn't think so.

Not only do I know what a jack-booted thug is, but I actually know what a
straw man argument is too. Your last post is a prime example.

Calm down son. You're gonna have a coronary before the terrorists can get to you! :-)

[SDuderstadt]

25. It's called a clarifying question, dude...

you might have noticed the question mark.

In the meantime, the TSA agent is heard clearly saying that Mocek wouldn't produce his I'D. Do have different information? So, what is your point?

[jjewell]

28. It's also known as "setting up a straw man"...

since nowhere did I suggest anything you questioned for "clarification".

Mocek was in a public area filming with a video camera, NOT in line about to board a plane.
Therefore the TSA request for ID, as well as the order to stop filming was was illegal and
in violation of his Constitutional rights, just as the jury found.

If Mocek was attempting to pass through the gate, and board a plane without showing ID,
you'd have a point. He wasn't. You don't.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Dude...

If I was "setting up for a strawman", please show me where I "delivered" it. Are you some sort of mindreader?

As far as your claim that Mocek was in a "public area" and not trying to pass through the checkpoint, I'd love to see some proof of that. That's certainly not what the video appears to show.

[jjewell]

37. jjewell is the moniker, "Dude" is part of yours...

Please learn to read for comprehension. I said you were
"setting up a straw man", not "setting up FOR a strawman",
thus, no "delivery" required...

Maybe you should watch the video again. This time watch it
for comprehension. Take note of where Mocek is standing when the
confrontation begins, and what he says. He is NOT in line.
He is in a public area and filming.

This video was the defense evidence produced at trial which
overcame the bogus charges brought by the TSA/police. The
jury found the video sufficient "proof" to find Mocek Not Guilty
of all charges. So what's YOUR problem?

[SDuderstadt]

38. Read post # 36, dude...

I am challenging your claim regarding the circumstances.

[SDuderstadt]

36. I don't think your claim is true...

On November 15, 2009, Phil Mocek stepped into the main terminal at the Albuquerque International Sunport planning to board a Southwest Airlines flight bound for SeaTac. He carried with him two pieces of luggage, a boarding pass, and a cell phone capable of recording audio and video. What he didn't have was a valid form of identification--no driver's license, no passport, nothing. So when Mocek reached the front of the line at the airport security checkpoint, the TSA worker asked him to step aside for further questioning. A few hours later, Mocek's flight touched down in Washington. He wasn't on board. Instead, the 37-year-old software developer was stuck inside a cell at the Albuquerque jail.

tp://blogs.stlw.co/dailyweekly/2011/01/phil_mocek_tsa_checkpoint_trial.php

[jjewell]

39. He was acquitted, wasn't he?

http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/22234431metro01-22-11.htm


Man Who Refused To Show ID at Sunport Acquitted

By Lloyd Jojola
Journal Staff Writer
In a case that garnered nationwide attention, the Seattle man accused of disorderly conduct and other crimes following his refusal to show his ID at the security checkpoint of the Albuquerque airport was acquitted of all counts Friday.
A Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court jury found Phillip Mocek not guilty on four alleged offenses.
Mocek was "very pleased" with the verdict.
"I think probably most significantly from the case we found via testimony from a (Transportation Security Administration) representative and from an Albuquerque police officer, they both testified that, in no uncertain terms, you do not have to show ID in order to fly and that you can use cameras in public areas of the airport," Mocek said.
In November 2009, Mocek, 36, refused to show an identification to TSA officers and began filming the process and confrontation that ensued with TSA and airport police personnel at the checkpoint area.
After it was alleged by police that Mocek created a disturbance and refused to leave, he was arrested and charged with misdemeanors of disorderly conduct, concealing his identity, refusing to obey a police officer and criminal trespass.
The six-woman jury deliberated about 50 minutes before acquitting Mocek, who the state in its closing statement characterized as testing the system.
"They (a TSA officer and an airport police officer) told you about the circumstances of this case and how it escalated, not by the officers' actions, but by Mr. Mocek's actions," Chief Deputy District Attorney Mark Drebing said. "He came there with the purpose to test the system. The problem is, he crossed the line. He went too far."
But the defense said the two-day trial showed Mocek did nothing illegal that day.
"He did nothing criminal. He did nothing wrong," defense co-counsel Molly Schmidt-Nowara said during her team's closing statement. "What happened is that Mr. Mocek went to the airport and he didn't have a government identification. He started going through the alternative screening process ... and he started filming — and he had a right to film.
"What happened is the TSA employees and the police officers became annoyed because he was filming. ...
"It is not criminal to bother the police, to annoy the police, to irritate the police or the TSA officers."
Mocek didn't take the stand in his defense. The defense rested without calling a witness.
Mocek, after the trial, denied that he was testing the system, as the state asserted.
"Everybody tests the system every time they go through," he said in an interview. "I wasn't testing the system. I went in with a boarding pass. I had what I'm required to have to fly and by way of being a human I observed what happened."
Mocek said he hasn't been to an airport since he flew back from Albuquerque.
"I don't fly now," he said. "I have decided that I won't fly as long as TSA has the policy that passengers are subjected to the strip-search machines and to the police-style body searches.
"That's not appropriate, and so I don't fly."
Mocek used Amtrak to make this week's court date.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude...

so, what is your claim now?

You DO realize that you've destroyed your prior claim that Mocek was not trying to go through security, don't you? Did you make up that claim?

Mpre importantly, based upon that outcome in a Metropolitan Court, would you advise people to attempt to film TSA security procedures or attempt to board a flight without a valid ID?

What is your position? Should passengers be required to show valid ID?

[jjewell]

41. Stop calling me "Dude".

No, I didn't "make up that claim", I commented on what I observed from the video.
As the article stated, he was "going through the alternative screening process",
because he had no ID. You will note that no ID is required to board a flight, all
that is required is a boarding pass. That's why there is an "alternative screening process"
in the first place. Also, it not illegal to film the TSA or the
police in a public area.

I don't give a damn whether people film TSA security procedures or not, and neither
should the TSA as it's not illegal.

As for showing valid ID; if you're willing to undergo the "alternative screening process" in
lieu of presenting ID, that's your prerogative. That is also not illegal.

False arrest and trumped up bogus charges, now THAT'S illegal.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Dude...

did you notice that you just destroyed your own claim again? If Mocek was going through "alternative screening", how could he possibly have been in a public area?

Your "argument" just keeps more and more tangled, dude.

[jjewell]

43. I'm going to ask you once more to stop calling me "Dude".

Oh, you didn't watch the video? Mocek was sequestered in a private area
off-limits to the public while alternative screening was taking place?
A private area where filming was prohibited? Really??

Please provide proof.

And by the way, funny the jury didn't see it that way.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...

it violates no DU rule to address you as "dude". Sorry.

Now you are flailing even more. You need to make up your mind where Mocek was and what he was doing. If he was in a "private area", by definition, that would mean he was not in a "public area". And, remember, earlier you claimed he was not trying to get through the security area. Do you see how those two claims are contradictory?

I'm headed out on a business trip tomorrow and I'm not certain when I will be back. Maybe you could use that time more productively to sharpen your story and stick to one version, dude.

[jjewell]

46. Very well. Your rudeness is noted.

You've provided no proof that Mocek was in a non-public area while
undergoing the alternative screening process.

The video shows that he was in a public area.

He was not attempting to bypass the TSA "security area".

He was submitting to the alternative screening process
for passengers with a valid boarding pass, but without ID.

He was NOT sequestered to a private area where filming may or may not be allowed.

A jury saw it the same way that I do. He won, the TSA and police lost,
as do you.

Better luck next time, enjoy your trip.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Dude...

Wouldn't the alternative screening area be past the entrance to the security checkpoint??? Are you claiming that passengers subjected to alternative screening are taken back into a public area of the airport? You realize that makes zero sense, right?

Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you got it wrong and stop flailing, dude?

[jjewell]

48. My name is not Dude. Your rudeness is again noted.

Question: "Wouldn't the alternative screening area be past the entrance to the security checkpoint???

Answer: No, not necessarily. Why should it be, if he doesn't have ID to proceed PAST the checkpoint?
And please provide proof that it is. Some proof, that the prosecution obviously couldn't provide, that
would sway a jury.

Question: "Are you claiming that passengers subjected to alternative screening are taken back into a public area of the airport?"

Answer: Since you haven't proven that he ever passed the checkpoint in the first place, which means he
never left the public area of the airport, why would he have been "taken" ANYWHERE? If he was out of
the public area, please provide proof.

By the way, why did Mocek WIN his case if what you think is true??

You tried. You failed.

Mocek wins. You lose.

Your rudeness bores me. Goodbye, enjoy your trip. :boring:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

45. You don't have to have ID to board a domestic flight, Dude.

[struggle4progress]

57. Effective June 21, 2008, adult passengers (18 and over) are required to show a U.S. federal or

state-issued photo ID that contains the following: name, date of birth, gender, expiration date and a tamper-resistant feature in order to be allowed to go through the checkpoint and onto their flight ... http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/acceptable_documents.shtm

[Hassin Bin Sober]

59. .

Passengers who do not or cannot present an acceptable ID will have to provide information to the Transportation Security Officer performing Travel Document Checking duties in order to verify their identity. Passengers who are cleared through this process may be subject to additional screening.

[LibDemAlways]

29. If you think TSA flunkies can stop a determined terrorist, I have some

ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.

[SDuderstadt]

35. So, are they TSA "flunkies" or

are they "jackbooted thugs" as others are describing them?

I'm confused.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. You are confused.

You don't need an ID to board a domestic flight and thugs are usually flunkies for the bosses.

Hope this helps.

[LibDemAlways]

52. Since you asked.....I've encountered both.

Some of these twits revel in what little power they have and lord it over the public. The teenage shitbag at LAX I was forced to deal with last summer clearly falls into the thug category. Totally got off on grabbing my wallet and emptying the contents all over the place and then walking away - for no other reason than that she could. Others are just clueless like the moron who, despite being warned that a particular camera was very expensive and should be handled gingerly (if at all), proceeded to shake and then drop it. That happened to a guy behind me at JFK.

Fact is that these people are not hired on the basis of their intelligence. They are not well trained. Their presence at the airport is nothing more than a nuisance that makes no one safer. If Obama and Congress are seriously looking to cut the budget, TSA would be an excellent place to start.

[demwing]

61. "One of YOU guys"??? Who are you refering to? /nt

[snot]

2. He's a hero. And I hope he's entitled to damages for the unlawful interference with his rights.

[Plucketeer]

5. Guys in their God costumes.

OH the empowerment! :crazy:



GOP VISION FOR THE
NEW MIDDLE CLASS

[dotymed]

12. Your papers?

Concealing I.D. ?
Whose peace was disturbed besides some arrogant nazi's who were upset because this guy would not cower for them?
They were disturbing his peace.
Hijackers would not know security measures that are publicly displayed at every airport?
What insanity.

[MrModerate]

50. Do the TSA bosses find it *impossible* to teach their employees . . .

The laws they're supposed to enforce? How fuckin' hard can that be?

[LibDemAlways]

53. Look at the caliber of the employees. Look at the

amount of training they receive. They aren't even empowered to enforce any laws. If there is a problem, they have to call in the real cops.

TSA is the biggest joke in the federal government.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

56. Well, that's a crashing bore. I had lots of pointless arguments like that with the police

when I was a teenager. So what did Mr Mocek accomplish? He didn't fly; he wasted a lot of people's time in the airport; then he wasted a lot more time in the criminal justice system. In the end, he's not guilty, which is fine with me, but if he tries it again I'd expect he'd be escorted out of the airport again, and I doubt he'll get much satisfaction beyond maybe another not guilty verdict if he's prosecuted again

It should be entirely clear why security won't let him film airport security procedures, and it should be entirely clear why ID is required to fly

[KansDem]

58. Osama bin Laden is laughing his ass off!

This is what the great America "Land of the Free" has come to...