"Unidentified Flying Objector" arrested

[shanek]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...OL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

A Keene Libertarian who tried to board a flight carrying nothing but a Bible and a copy of the Declaration of Independence was arrested Saturday at Manchester Airport.

Russell Kanning, 35, was arrested after refusing to comply with security screening procedures and refusing to leave the screening area, according to the Rockingham County sheriff's department. He was charged with criminal trespassing and was being held at the Rockingham County jail.

Kanning, an accountant and staunch Libertarian, said last week he hoped his actions would highlight what he considers overly burdensome state intrusion.

"What he was trying to get across is that people need to be able to travel with dignity," said his wife. "They've just gotten to a point where security is ridiculous."

"We want people to think about it: Do you want to give up all your rights and live in a police state?" she said. "I don't think they can make us secure if they're bombing other countries... To be perfectly honest, I'm in far more danger from my own government than from any terrorist."

Interesting that the charge was "criminal trespassing." The way I figure it, there are two possibilities:

1) Airports are public property, in which case anyone having legitimate business there should be allowed unless the government has probable cause to restrict that particular individual; or

2) Airports are private property, in which case "criminal trespassing" would only apply if he didn't have permission to be there...and he did have permission, as his boarding pass proves.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if he pleads "not guilty."

 

[rdtjr]

A couple problems with your analysis:

1. Publicly paid for or owned places /= "I can go wherever I want." Government and military spaces are great examples of that. You may "own" the Pentagon or Capital building as a taxpayer, but good luck just walking in whenever and however you like.

2. His ticket only gives him permission to go to places and under conditions spelled out in the legal agreement that purchasing the ticket makes you explicitly a party to. For example, you can't go onto the flight line or baggage handling areas and you can't just decide you want to board a different flight just because you have any old ticket. When you purchase that ticket you agree to the conditions that come along with it, including having your person and belongings subject to search. Don't like it? Then don't fly, or learn how to fly and purchase your own airplane... wouldn't that be the obvious solution here?

 

[shanek]

A couple problems with your analysis:

1. Publicly paid for or owned places /= "I can go wherever I want." Government and military spaces are great examples of that. You may "own" the Pentagon or Capital building as a taxpayer, but good luck just walking in whenever and however you like.

I did say, "anyone having legitimate business there."

2. His ticket only gives him permission to go to places and under conditions spelled out in the legal agreement that purchasing the ticket makes you explicitly a party to. For example, you can't go onto the flight line or baggage handling areas and you can't just decide you want to board a different flight just because you have any old ticket.

But that's not relevant. Having the boarding pass means that he has permission to go to the gate and get on the plane. And that's all he was trying to do.

When you purchase that ticket you agree to the conditions that come along with it, including having your person and belongings subject to search.

Show me where these conditions are spelled out.

Don't like it? Then don't fly, or learn how to fly and purchase your own airplane... wouldn't that be the obvious solution here?

It would, if this were a private act by airline companies or private airports. It's not. It's forced on both them and us by government.

I just looked up the legal definition of "trespass" according to dictionary.law.com:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2160

entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority (like that given to a health inspector) and causing any damage, no matter how slight. Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property. Trespass includes erecting a fence on another's property or a roof which overhangs a neighbor's property, swinging the boom of a crane with loads of building materials over another's property, or dumping debris on another's real estate. In addition to damages, a court may grant an injunction prohibiting any further continuing, repeated or permanent trespass. Trespass for an illegal purpose is a crime.

First point: the damage is against the property owner and is a civil wrong only. Second, in order for it to be criminal, which is what the UFO was arrested for, it must be "for an illegal purpose." What was his illegal purpose? How is getting on a plane that you have a ticket and boarding pass for illegal?

Or is it because of terrorism? Are we all suspected terrorists now?

 

[CFLarsen]

Russell Kanning, 35, was arrested after refusing to comply with security screening procedures

There ya go.

Regardless of airports being public or private property, anyone who doesn't want to go through security before boarding a plane is highly suspect.

and refusing to leave the screening area

So, he wanted to create a nuisance. He succeeded and landed himself in jail. So?

Is this another one of these Libertarians who try to get a message through by posing as an idiot?

 

[daredelvis]

Thanks Shane. Nothing breaks up a monotonous day like a story about a crackpot. I almost had milk come out of my nose. Why the bible?
Daredelvis

 

[Santa666]

When you purchase that ticket you agree to the conditions that come along with it, including having your person and belongings subject to search.

Show me where these conditions are spelled out.

I will say I tend to agree with Shane here on this one, but you asked where it is spelled out. Please see the link below.

http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1049.xml

 

[WildCat]

Show me where these conditions are spelled out.

Right here. But since everybody who is not Terry Schiavo brain-dead knows this already, I can only assume that you have a well-prepared manifesto about this you're just dying to post here, so go for it.

 

[WildCat]

I will say I tend to agree with Shane here on this one, but you asked where it is spelled out. Please see the link below.

http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1049.xml

You got some mighty quick fingers there for a newbie, Santa666... you beat me to it.

Oh, and welcome! This forum needs a satanic santa...

 

[Hutch]

Show me where these conditions are spelled out.

The other guys went for the Government site, but it doesn't spell out the law, which Shane will porbably say is unconstitutional anyway (the man is consistent, folks).

So I tried a site with the Airlines Conditions of Carriage, which is all that fine print that used to be part of tickets prior to e-Ticketing and is still in force. Here is the site I found it on, you can probably find others.

The operative words are in Paragraph 10:

10. Passenger shall comply with Government travel requirements, present exit, entry and other required documents and arrive at airport by time fixed by carrier or, if no time is fixed, early enough to complete departure procedures.

(Italics Mine)

So the contract between the passenger and the airline agrees that you will 'comply with Government requirements, so there was no way the airline could have transported him without being in violation of their own contract--and therefore having to sue themselves!

Yes, I can see the hole in the argument, but I thought the Airline contract might mean more to shanek than the TSA Homepage.

 

[shanek]

I will say I tend to agree with Shane here on this one, but you asked where it is spelled out. Please see the link below.

http://www.tsa.gov/public/interapp/editorial/editorial_1049.xml

He said, "When you purchase that ticket you agree to the conditions..." The above is not a document that is produced by either side partaking in the transaction; ergo, it does not impose any sort of contractual obligations on either party.

Try again.

 

[shanek]

Right here.

Same objection as above.

 

[shanek]

The other guys went for the Government site, but it doesn't spell out the law, which Shane will porbably say is unconstitutional anyway (the man is consistent, folks).

Not at all. I want to know where/how I agree to these terms by purchasing a ticket. Citing a law doesn't do anything to support that, as laws are not agreed on, but applied by force.

(Although it would be nice if you could show me where in Article I Section 8 the government has the power to do this, particularly since they're directly prohibited from doing so by the 4th Amendment...)

Yes, I can see the hole in the argument, but I thought the Airline contract might mean more to shanek than the TSA Homepage.

No, since it's there under duress. Any clause of any contract placed there under duress is void.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

[

Interesting that the charge was "criminal trespassing." The way I figure it, there are two possibilities:

1) Airports are public property, in which case anyone having legitimate business there should be allowed unless the government has probable cause to restrict that particular individual; or

2) Airports are private property, in which case "criminal trespassing" would only apply if he didn't have permission to be there...and he did have permission, as his boarding pass proves.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if he pleads "not guilty."

Not necessarily in the case of possibility two. I don't see how it would be any different than if I said "You can enter my property provided you have a written invitation from me and you let me pat you down for a gun" and then I give you the written invitation but decline the pat down and enter my property anyway. Would that not be trespassing? Being my property, could I not set any stupid condition I wish for you to remain on my property? If so, why doesn't the Airport have rights to set conditions (of which you have to fulfill ALL of them) in order to remain on their property?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: "Unidentified Flying Objector" arrested

I don't see how it would be any different than if I said "You can enter my property provided you have a written invitation from me and you let me pat you down for a gun" and then I give you the written invitation but decline the pat down and enter my property anyway. Would that not be trespassing?

Yes, but THAT ISN'T WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. What's happening here is that you give me written permission, I try to enter your property, but the government stops me on the doorstep and wants me to show my ID and frisk me. There's all the difference in the world there. This is an issue of LAW, not contract.

If the ID and search requirement were set voluntarily by the airline, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Donks]

No, since it's there under duress. Any clause of any contract placed there under duress is void.

Why under duress? Doesn't the customer willingly accept the conditions when purchasing a ticket?

 

[WildCat]

[libertarian rant]Airline security laws ARE PATENTLY STUPID. If EVERYONE was allowed to carry GUNS AND BOMBS on commercial planes no SUICIDE TERRORIST WOULD EVER even THINK of hijacking a plane because the GUN AND BOMB-WIELDING passengers on BOARD WOULD KILL HIM.[/libertarian rant]

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

He plead guilty on Monday to criminal trespass.

 

[UserGoogol]

Shanek said:
(Although it would be nice if you could show me where in Article I Section 8 the government has the power to do this, particularly since they're directly prohibited from doing so by the 4th Amendment...)

It probably wouldn't be that hard to argue that this sort of law falls under the domain of regulating commerce. Also, if the government isn't personally searching you, (but instead telling someone else to search you) they can probably get around the fourth amendment, in letter if not spirit. Not that I neccesarily disagree with you in principle.

 

[shanek]

Why under duress?

Because the clause is only there because of government threats.

 

[shanek]

He plead guilty on Monday to criminal trespass.

Yeah, Fisher pled guilty, too. I don't know what's up with that; if you're just going to plead guilty, how do you expect to change anything? If you're going to fight what you consider to be a bad law, dammit, get in there and fight it!