4 ms·

The "unlock your phone" part is obviously a problem, and the focus of HN's attention. What gets me is an Officer can say to your face "You are not under arrest

by grecy 8y ago

The "unlock your phone" part is obviously a problem, and the focus of HN's attention. What gets me is an Officer can say to your face "You are not under arrest" but then handcuff you, take you someplace against your will, and detain you there without access to a lawyer. How can that possibly be the conduct of Officers in a free country? I could even understand if the Officer just plainly said "we can not let you board this flight, you must leave the airport" or something similar. But handcuffs and detention even though you are not under arrest is insanity.

ddalex 8y ago
> handcuffs and detention even though you are not under arrest is insanity No, it's kidnapping. Let the courts deal with it.
- mchannon 8y ago
  Speaking from experience, the courts are just fine with things like this. Law enforcement don’t have to record their interactions with you, and it’s their word (a respected public official) against yours (a suspected criminal). You may have heard of Mirandizing a suspect, but there’s an emerging phenomenon called Behelerizing. Tell the suspect they’re not under arrest (or claim you told them), even though you’re restraining them, and anything they say (or anything you claim they said) is ruled voluntary and admissible. 3rd world ain’t got nothing on Uncle Sam.
- wil421 8y ago
  It’s called being detained. Means the officer has reason to suspect you of something but doesn’t have probable cause. You can see it on cop shows all the time when they arrive to a heated situation. Sometimes they handcuff everyone. How long was this guy detained? Props to him for filing a lawsuit I would’ve just caved to pressure and complained heavily.
Lio 8y ago
I believe it's now the same in New Zealand too sadly. https://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/pacific/nz-to-fine-travellers-who-refuse-to-hand-over-phone-passwords-at-border/news-story/cf28326c5976104e5d56066783032e44 https://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/pacific/nz-to-fi...
cbm-vic-20 8y ago
This might be the "internet tough guy" in me, but if I was travelling alone I'd ask the officer if I was under arrest, and if they answer no, I'd ask if I would be under arrest if I walked away. If the officer says yes, I'd get up and walk away (not towards a "secure area"), proceed to get arrested, and immediately ask for my lawyer, and would say no more.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  This. Once you've already missed your flight they have a lot less leverage to get your to not stand up for your rights. At that point it's not like you have plans for the next 24hr (the flight was your plan and that ship sailed) so you might as well stand up for your rights, get "arrested", contact a lawyer and have a chance at getting a small "please go away" settlement in a couple years. Edit: changed words around to make it more clear.
  - flatb 8y ago
    Please don't give tough-guy "smart" advice like this on the internet. You're going to end up getting someone as naive as you into trouble. I can guarantee that most any officer will charge you with 'resisting' or 'non-compliance' or some other fuzzy, indefensible legal charge just because you pissed them off by 'challenging their authority'. And now you missed your flight and have legal problems for what, to prove a point? Here's some advice on what pretty much any officer will think in these kinds of situations: 'Oh, you want to make my life harder? I'll make YOUR life harder'. I know, it's bullshit, unprofessional childish behavior, but it's real. And believe me, he/she will win. Be practical. Changing this stuff comes from legislation, not some brave grandstanding power-move that literally not even the rest of your fellow travelers will give a damn about.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      The legislation already exists. The laws that the government agency is usually in violation of in these sorts of situations became effective on June 21 1788. The actual changes come from some judge who's had a bad day telling the prosecution "no, screw you, the officer's actions were in violation of the defendant's Nth amendment rights, you have no case when you act like this" and then that percolating up through the various appellate courts.

by grecy 8y ago

ddalex 8y ago

> handcuffs and detention even though you are not under arrest is insanity No, it's kidnapping. Let the courts deal with it.

mchannon 8y ago
Speaking from experience, the courts are just fine with things like this. Law enforcement don’t have to record their interactions with you, and it’s their word (a respected public official) against yours (a suspected criminal). You may have heard of Mirandizing a suspect, but there’s an emerging phenomenon called Behelerizing. Tell the suspect they’re not under arrest (or claim you told them), even though you’re restraining them, and anything they say (or anything you claim they said) is ruled voluntary and admissible. 3rd world ain’t got nothing on Uncle Sam.
wil421 8y ago
It’s called being detained. Means the officer has reason to suspect you of something but doesn’t have probable cause. You can see it on cop shows all the time when they arrive to a heated situation. Sometimes they handcuff everyone. How long was this guy detained? Props to him for filing a lawsuit I would’ve just caved to pressure and complained heavily.

Lio 8y ago

I believe it's now the same in New Zealand too sadly. https://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/pacific/nz-to-fine-travellers-who-refuse-to-hand-over-phone-passwords-at-border/news-story/cf28326c5976104e5d56066783032e44 https://www.news.com.au/travel/world-travel/pacific/nz-to-fi...

cbm-vic-20 8y ago

This might be the "internet tough guy" in me, but if I was travelling alone I'd ask the officer if I was under arrest, and if they answer no, I'd ask if I would be under arrest if I walked away. If the officer says yes, I'd get up and walk away (not towards a "secure area"), proceed to get arrested, and immediately ask for my lawyer, and would say no more.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
This. Once you've already missed your flight they have a lot less leverage to get your to not stand up for your rights. At that point it's not like you have plans for the next 24hr (the flight was your plan and that ship sailed) so you might as well stand up for your rights, get "arrested", contact a lawyer and have a chance at getting a small "please go away" settlement in a couple years. Edit: changed words around to make it more clear.
- flatb 8y ago
  Please don't give tough-guy "smart" advice like this on the internet. You're going to end up getting someone as naive as you into trouble. I can guarantee that most any officer will charge you with 'resisting' or 'non-compliance' or some other fuzzy, indefensible legal charge just because you pissed them off by 'challenging their authority'. And now you missed your flight and have legal problems for what, to prove a point? Here's some advice on what pretty much any officer will think in these kinds of situations: 'Oh, you want to make my life harder? I'll make YOUR life harder'. I know, it's bullshit, unprofessional childish behavior, but it's real. And believe me, he/she will win. Be practical. Changing this stuff comes from legislation, not some brave grandstanding power-move that literally not even the rest of your fellow travelers will give a damn about.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    The legislation already exists. The laws that the government agency is usually in violation of in these sorts of situations became effective on June 21 1788. The actual changes come from some judge who's had a bad day telling the prosecution "no, screw you, the officer's actions were in violation of the defendant's Nth amendment rights, you have no case when you act like this" and then that percolating up through the various appellate courts.