Source: https://papersplease.org/wp/mocek/
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 22:54:03
Document Index: 410311662

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 30', '§ 40101', '§ 1983']

“Freedom Flyer” arrested at TSA checkpoint
“NOT GUILTY” VERDICT BY JURY ON ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES
Federal civil rights lawsuit pending against police and TSA staff
Our analysis of the significance of the verdict
Help pay off Mr. Mocek’s legal bills from his criminal defense
Follow-up Federal civil rights lawsuit: Phillip Mocek v. Albuquerque et al.
Phil Mocek (pronounced “MOE-seck” or “MOE-sick”) was arrested by Albuquerque aviation police at a TSA checkpoint at the Albuquerque International Sunport on November 15, 2009. He had a valid ticket on Southwest Airlines (“You are now free to move about the country”), and was attempting to get to his flight. Like the “Freedom Riders” of the 1960s on interstate buses, Mr. Mocek sought to exercise his Federally and Constitutionally-guaranteed right to travel, but was arrested by local police for alleged violations of state and local laws and ordinances. Mr. Mocek was acquitted by a jury on all counts, and is pursuing a Federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Aviation Police Department, and the individual Albuquerque police and TSA staff for violations of his civil rights.
Why was Mr. Mocek arrested?
Even after Mr. Mocek’s trial and acquittal, we still don’t know. The first statement by the police (on their own live audio recording) was that he was being arrested, “for being stupid”. The real motivations of the police for arresting Mr. Mocek remain a potential issue at trial. Based on the available evidence, we are concerned that Mr. Mocek was arrested because he declined to show ID credentials, declined to answer questions about his identity, and/or because he attempted to photograph and record his interactions with the TSA and police – all of which were activities protected by the First Amendment and other laws.
What were the charges against Mr. Mocek?
He was charged with 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 his identity with intent to obstruct, intimidate, hinder or interrupt (§ 12-2-16), and disorderly conduct (NMSA § 30-2-1). [Note: It appears that direct links to sections of the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances will work only after you first click on the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances link and then on either “frames” or “no frames”, to set the required cookies in your Web browser.] The maximum penalties, if he had been convicted, could have been up to 6 months in jail for disorderly conduct (a “petty misdemeanor” under New Mexico state law), and 90 days in jail for each of the ordinance violations, for a total maximum sentence of 15 months in jail.
Was Mr. Mocek guilty of any of these crimes?
No. The jury acquitted Mr. Mocek without his having to testify or present any evidence in his defense. The prosecution failed to meet their burden of proving that Mr. Mocek had committed any crime.
There is no evidence of any of these crimes in the police audio and Mr. Mocek’s video. Mr. Mocek was calm, polite, and nonviolent. There is no evidence that he was disorderly, made any attempt to “conceal” his identity, or had any obstructive intent. As a ticketed passenger, his right of transit through the airport and the TSA checkpoint and by the airline as a common carrier was guaranteed by Federal law, the First Amendment, and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He was not trespassing, and any police order to leave the airport would have been unlawful.
(If something like this should happen to you, be aware that police and custodians of public records aren’t always aware of what recordings they may have, of the technical features of their recording and archiving systems, or of the possibility that audio and video archiving systems may generate logs of what recordings are accessed or deleted, when, and by whom. As this incident (chronology) in Seattle showed, digital recordings aren’t necessarily “deleted” automatically, and may not be overwritten until long after police assume that they have been deleted. If you are requesting records of a police encounter, be sure to include a request for any system logs of access, viewing, and/or deletion of the recordings, and be extremely skeptical of any claims that digital recordings are actually “erased” on a fixed schedule, rather than merely flagged as potentially available to be overwritten.)
Are TSA staff or law enforcement officers alllowed to search or seize photogrpahs or audio or video recordings?
Generally not, if you possess these materials in connection with an intent to distribute them publicly, including online distribution such as posting them on Facebook, Youtube, etc. The Federal “Privacy Protection Act of 1980” (42 USC 2000aa), protects these materials from search or seizure. There are some exceptions to this law, including a limited exception for searches and seizures by customs inspectors (not the TSA) at international ports of entry (not domestic airports). But there is no general airport or TSA exception to this law.
Do you have a right to travel by air?
Yes. 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. Airlines are common carriers. Mr. Mocek’s attempted trip was an exercise of “the right … peaceably 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 US.
Can local police lawfully interfere with your right to travel, by air or otherwise?
No. The TSA checkpoint is a Federal facility, the airport and airline are Federally certified, and the right of travel by air is guaranteed by Federal law. Any interference with the passage of ticketed passengers, under color of state or local authority, would violate 42 USC § 1983. Interference by local police with air travel is forbidden by the same laws that forbade Southern sheriffs from interfering with interstate bus travel by Freedom Riders. In this sense, we see Mr. Mocek as a modern-day “Freedom Flyer.”
Phil Mocek was found “NOT GUILTY” on all counts by a jury on Friday, January 21, 2011, at the conclusion of a two-day trial in Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court in Albuquerque, NM.
Jury trial in State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek (Criminal Case 2573709) began on Thursday, January 20, 2011, before Judge Kevin L. Fitzwater. A jury was selected and heard opening arguments and the first prosecution witness on Thursday. Testimony and arguments were completed and the jury returned its verdict of “NOT GUILTY” on all counts on Friday, January 21, 2011, after about an hour of deliberations. [Complete audio archive and photos of the trial (except jury selection)]
Did Mr. Mocek testify or present any evidence in his defense?
No. The jury found that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof, based solely on the evidence introduced by the prosecution (including the video from Mr. Mocek’s camera).
Mr. Mocek did not testify, and the defense rested without calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence. 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.
What did the TSA and police witnesses testify about the authority of TSA “officers,” flying without ID, and using cameras in airports?
Annoying the TSA is not a crime. Photography is not a crime. You have the right to fly without ID, and to photograph, film, and record what happens. Your best defense is your own camera and microphone. Ordinary jurors know, and were prepared to recognize with their verdict in this case, that the TSA and police lie about what they are doing and why.
What does the Identity Project hope will happen as a result of this “NOT GUILTY” verdict?
We hope that Mr. Mocek’s acquittal will encourage and empower others to question the unlawful demands of the TSA — including their demands that we waive our right to remain silent, provide them with evidence as to our identity, and submit to virtual strip-search machines or groping — and to photograph and record our interactions with the TSA’s cop-wannabes and rent-a-cops and the local law enforcement officers who provide their muscle.
(See also our FAQ: What you need to know about your rights at the airport, and the information about dealing with police encounters from FlexYourRights.org.)
What can I do to help now that Mr. Mocek has been acquitted?
Contribute to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund. Mr. Mocek spent $34,000 to hire private lawyers and additional costs and lost wages to return repeatedly to court hearings in Albuquerque from his home in Seattle. Contributions can be made online via Paypal. Note that the Paypal donation receipt will read, “Canabis Defense Coalition”, as this is the group that volunteered to collect donations for Phil’s defense. But all funds donated will go to Phil’s defense.
Contributions by cash, check, or money order can be sent directly to Mr. Mocek’s lawyers. Checks must be payable to “Freedman Boyd et al.” You can indicate “Phil Mocek defense fund” in the memo field. Send to:
If you would like your contribution to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund to be tax deductible (or if your employer will match your contributions to tax-exempt charities), you can send it to CDC, a Washington-state 501(c)(3) IRS-recognized public charity, earmarked for Mr. Mocek’s defense fund:
Spread the word about this case and what it means. Organize a gathering to discuss the issue. Stand up for your own rights, and “just say no” to demands for ID. See our website or contact us for more on how to get involved.
What happened after Mr. Mocek was acquitted?
Mr. Mocek filed a claim and, when it was ignored, a Federal lawsuit against the City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Aviation Police Department for violations of his civil rights. Eventually Mr. Mocek’s complaint was dismissed, and the Court of Appeals found that the police were entitled to “qualified immunity” because they might “reasonably” have thought their actions were legal (even if they didn’t actually think that, and even if their actions were illegal ). According to the Court of Appeals, “[W]e doubt that there was probable cause to arrest Mocek merely for failing to show documentation proving his identity in this case. Nonetheless, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because even assuming they misinterpreted New Mexico law, their mistake was reasonable.”
We went to Albuquerque to observe and report on Mr. Mocek’s criminal trial (since the trial was not recorded or transcribed by the court, our recordings are the only complete record of the trial), to help explain the issues it raises, and to support Mr. Mocek’s rights (1) to travel without showing ID credentials or answering questions from the TSA or police and (2) to photograph and record his interactions with TSA and police officers. Contact us for more information or if you’d like to arrange for an interview or speaker from the Identity Project. Nothing we say should be taken as legal advice or as representing Mr. Mocek or his criminal defense attorneys (Nancy Hollander and Molly Schmidt-Nowara). Mr. Mocek is represented in his Federal civil rights lawsuit by attorneys including James Wheaton, Lowell Chow, and William Simpich of the First Amendment Project, our parent organization, in addition to local counsel Mary Louise Boelcke in Albuquerque.
Complete audio archive (and photos) of the trial (except jury selection)
Documents obtained by Mr. Mocek in response to his requests under New Mexico’s public records laws, including police reports and audio and video recordings
Video of the incident from Mr. Mocek’s digital camera (as played to the jury except for the subtitled transcript)
Mr. Mocek’s responses to questions from the press in the hallway outside the courtroom, immediately after the verdict
Our report on the verdict and analysis of what it means
Discussion of the case in the travel “security” forum at Flyertalk.com (more here)
Contribute to Mr. Mocek’s defense fund. Contributions can be made online via Paypal. Note that the Paypal donation receipt will read, “Canabis Defense Coalition”, as this is the group that volunteered to collect donations for Phil’s defense. But all funds donated will go to Phil’s defense. Contributions by cash, check, or money order can be sent directly to Mr. Mocek’s lawyers: Phil Mocek legal defense, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Ives & Duncan PA, 20 FIRST PLAZA CTR NW STE 700, ALBUQUERQUE NM 87102-5802.
Information about dealing with police encounters from FlexYourRights.org
For case records, go to the county court website, complete the “captcha”, and enter “CR” in the “prefix field and “2573709” in the “criminal case number” field. Note that the case has been listed on the docket and in some of the other police and court documents with Mr. Mocek’s name misspelled as “Moesack”.
Mr. Mocek’s responses to questions from the press in the hallway outside the courtroom, immediately after the verdict (complete and unedited)
Video of the verdict and excepts from Phil Mocek’s reaction
What have Albuquerque and other news media and blogs said about this case?
The Official TSA Blog (blog.tsa.gov):
“New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek: A Quick Reminder on ID and Photography at TSA Checkpoints,” Jan. 28, 2011 (after the trial, but not mentioning that Mr. Mocek was acquitted until a later update)
Fox Business Network: Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano:
“Phil Mocek on Battling the TSA,” Jan. 28, 2011 (also on Youtube)
Albuquerque Weekly Alibi:
“TSA case goes to trial tomorrow in Albuquerque,” Dec. 6, 2010
“TSA trial postponed indefinitely,” Dec. 9, 2010
“Phil Mocek: You don’t have to show ID to fly,” Jan. 26, 2011
KIVA talk radio, 1550 AM, “Adam vs. the Man” with Adam Kokesh:
“Papers!?! Puh-lease!,” with guest Edward Hasbrouck of the Identity Project, Dec. 7, 2010 (2 hours, 8 installments on Youtube) (single 2-hour stream on Ustream.TV)
Follow-up, Dec. 8, 2010
“The Patience of Phil Mocek,” with guest Edward Hasbrouck, Jan. 20, 2011
“Phil Mocek: NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS!,” with guest Phil Mocek, Jan. 21, 2011
KOB Albuquerque, channel 4 TV:
“Man faces charges for defying TSA agents”, Dec. 9, 2010 (also on Youtube)
“Woman suing TSA over what she calls invasive search”, Dec. 11, 2010 (includes complaint against TSA and update on Mocek case)
“Trial begins for WA man who refused to show ID at Sunport”, Jan. 20, 2011, 12:30 p.m.
“Trial underway for man who refused to show ID to TSA agents”, Jan. 20, 2011, 5 p.m. (includes video of excerpts from prosecution and defense opening arguments)
“Update:Trial begins for WA man who refused to show ID at Sunport”, Jan. 20, 2011, 6 p.m. (also on Youtube)
“Man acquitted of charges from refusing to show TSA agent ID,” Jan. 21, 2011 (also on Youtube)
KOAT Albuquerque, channel 7 ABC TV:
“‘Freedom Flier’ on trial: Man on trial after argument with TSA”, Jan. 20, 2011
“‘Freedom Flier’ Or Royal Pain?,” Jan. 19, 2011
(Note that in Gilmore v. Gonzalez, the TSA swore to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that no TSA rule requires passengers to show ID, despite the statements to the contrary on the TSA website. The TSA has kept the policies and procedures for travel without ID secret, even though they were shown in camera to the judges of the 9th Circuit, who ruled that no ID was required. We are currently appealing the TSA’s refusal to release these policies and procedures in response to our Freedom of Information Act request. Mr. Mocek has not been charged with any violation of Federal law or TSA regulations.)
“‘Security Checkpoint Case Opens,” Jan. 21, 2011
“Man Who Refused To Show ID at Sunport Acquitted.” Jan. 22, 2011
New Mexico Watchdog:
“War against cameras, the ABQ edition,” Jan. 22, 2011
“Phil Mocek: On Trial For Being TSA Checkpoint Worker’s Worst Nightmare,” Jan. 19, 2011
“Jury Finds Phil Mocek Not Guilty of All Charges From TSA Arrest,” Jan. 22, 2011 (updated Jan. 24, 2011, with some of the most extensive quotes from Mr. Mocek after the verdict)
“TSA’s Worst Nightmare Continues: Phil Mocek Now Suing for Civil Rights Violations,” May 27, 2011
KOMO TV-4, Seattle:
“Seattle man on trial for refusing to show ID to TSA agents,” Jan. 20, 2011
“Freedom Fighter or TSA’s worst nightmare?,” Jan. 20, 2011
KIRO TV-7, Seattle:
“Seattle Man In Albuquerque TSA Checkpoint Trial Cleared Of All Charges,” Jan. 24, 2011
CHS Capital Hill Seattle:
“Capitol Hill man beats the TSA, acquitted of charges in New Mexico ID case,” Jan. 22, 2011
“Seattle man acquitted in TSA airport case,” Jan. 21-22, 2011
“TSA vs. Seattle man: ‘He’s taking pictures of all of us’ (VIDEO),” Jan. 24, 2011
“EditoriaL: TSA on the hot seat; New Congress will investigate scanning, groping,” Jan. 20, 2011
The Register (U.K.):
“Passenger cleared after TSA checkpoint stare-down: Man fought the law and the law man won,” Jan. 25, 2011
“Can Jesse Ventura force a TSA submission?,” Feb. 1, 2011
“Flier beats TSA video recording charge in court,” Jan. 24, 2011
Carlos Miller – Photography is Not A Crime:
“Man arrested after refusing to show TSA his identification,” Nov. 17, 2009
“Man Cleared of All Charges Stemming From TSA Arrest over Video,” Jan. 21, 2011
“Phil Mocek’s Video Still Infuriating Despite his Legal Victory Against TSA,” Jan. 26, 2011
“TSA backtracks on private screeners amid more lawsuits,” Jan. 29, 2011
Common Sense with Paul Jacob (syndicated):
“Not Guilty as Charged,” Feb. 3, 2011
“Man Acquitted In Lawsuit Over Filming The TSA And Not Showing ID,” Jan. 24, 2011
“TSA’s Blogger Bob and the many angry comments,” Feb. 2, 2011
Checkpoint USA:
“Phil Mocek Acquitted, TSA Admits Photography Legal, ID Not Required,” Jan. 24, 2011
“Man Acquitted of Crimes Associated with Asserting His Rights,” Jan. 25, 2011
“Seattle Activist Wins Case Against TSA,” Jan. 23, 2011
“Phil Mocek: You don’t have to show ID to fly->,” Jan. 26, 2011
Amy Alkon, Advice Goddess:
“Welcome To Albuquerque, USSR,” Jan. 30, 2011
Big Brother Watch [U.K.]:
“Landmark USA judgment protects citizens,” Jan. 27, 2011
Privacy Journal (subscription only – not available online):
“No ID Requirement at Airports, TSA Admits,” Feb. 2011, p.1
“Defiant Traveler Prevails in Court,” Feb. 2011, p. 1
The Travel Insider:
“This week’s security horror story,” Jan. 28, 2011
WOOT (“One Day, One Deal):
“The verdict’s in! The precedent’s set! Start photographing TSA agents and police officers today!,” Jan. 25, 2011
“Jury Says it’s Okay to Record the TSA,” Jan. 31, 2011
“Jury Vindicates Right to Fly Without Producing Identification,” Jan. 24, 2011
Uncontrolled Airspace Podcast (UCAP):
“Annoying the TSA is not a crime,” Jan. 31, 2011
Tray Stacking Association:
“Passenger cleared after TSA checkpoint stare-down,” Jan. 29, 2011
“TSA Blog finally points out that Philip Mocek was found not guilty,” Jan. 30, 2011
The Computer Curmudgeon:
“US Constitution Upheld — TSA Slapped Down,” Jan. 23, 2011
“TSA Spin Machine Runs Wild,” Jan. 29, 2011
“A disingenuous update,” Jan. 31, 2011
Totally, completely, absolutely, unequivocally unofficial blog:
“He fought the law, and the law lost,” Jan. 24, 2011
“Just how weak was the TSA’s case?” Jan. 24, 2011
“Albuquerque: Phillip Mocek wins jury trial…,” Jan. 21, 2011
Security Generation:
“Phil Mocek Acquitted on TSA’s No-ID and Recording Charges,” Jan. 31, 2011
“Passenger cleared after TSA checkpoint stare-down (Papers please!),” Jan. 27, 2011
The Blotch:
“Mocek Cleared of Charges Showing TSA Relies on Intimidation Not Law,” Jan. 23, 2011
“Justice Through Juries: An Interview with Phil Mocek,”, May 17, 2011