4 ms·

If you cannot leave, are you not detained? "This is absolutely correct, at this time he was in limbo, he was not being detained, but he could not leave. A per

by ISL 13y ago

If you cannot leave, are you not detained? "This is absolutely correct, at this time he was in limbo, he was not being detained, but he could not leave. A person cannot simply leave the security area of any airport once they are on the airside but have not satisfactorily completed screening. Once a person has passed through security, but is not cleared to fly and then chooses to leave, such as Mr. Mukerjee, s/he must be escorted out of the secure area (and usually the terminal)."

kyllo 13y ago
This is complete bullshit. "Limbo" is not a thing. Either you are being detained, or you are free to leave.
- ars 13y ago
  No, there's a third option: You will be free to leave after some defined event occurs.
  - simonster 13y ago
    Does this "defined event" actually have any legal status? How long can it take until the defined event occurs? It's possible that this is an intentionally murky area of the law (i.e., a judge can decide that preventing a person from leaving for an hour in case X is okay but 1 minute in case Y is not). Even so, it seems like if there's a person in front of you with legal authority to let you out of a secured area and you are asking them to let you out, then either they have to let you out or you are being detained.
  - arjie 13y ago
    That sounds precisely like 'detention'. For instance, people are detained pending trial. In fact, imprisonment is also being free to leave after some defined event occurs - namely the completion of sentence. This third option is exactly the first option.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    In that case you are detained. Temporarily, but you are still detained.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    No. In that case you are detained until that event occurs, like the person showing up to escort you out, or someone posting bail, or the police handing you your ticket and saying you are free to leave.
- unreal37 13y ago
  If you're in an airport security section, you're not free to go wherever you like. He wanted to go to the back of the line. They said he could leave the airport. But his bag still needed to be searched. He was free to leave, but he didn't want to leave. He wanted to go catch his flight.
  - prawn 13y ago
    He didn't want to let his laptop out of his sight. I'd behave the same way given how important my work/data is to me.
    - etchalon 13y ago
      Which is completely reasonable. But the fact their guidelines require his bag to be cleared before he could have it back does not mean he was "detained". There are some pretty goddamn good reasons why the bag of a dude who tests positive for explosives has to be cleared before he's given it and allowed to run around an airport full of people.
      - vidarh 13y ago
        > There are some pretty goddamn good reasons why the bag of a dude who tests positive for explosives has to be cleared before he's given it and allowed to run around an airport full of people. If so, there are some pretty good reason why, if they consider that threat even remotely real, they should clear the area. A good indication that the actual terrorist threat is absolutely vanishingly small: If there were lots of terrorists around, one of the easiest targets these days that'd maximize the amount of terror, is airport security screening areas. If they get through, they could defuse the bomb and blow it up on a plane instead, if not, they could let it go off on a timer and take out both a lot of passengers and a lot of security people.
        etchalon 13y ago
        I don't know how much faith I'd put into your hypothetical. I'm not implying the terrorist threat is large – it's really, super small. But just because they haven't done THAT yet, doesn't mean they won't. So far, in the US, what they've done is sneak explosives onto planes.
- etchalon 13y ago
  "Free to leave" and "free to roam about the airport" are two vastly different things. He was free to leave the airport, if escorted, as the article states quite clearly.
MattyRad 13y ago
The police force is holding you against your will for the purpose of determining if you are guilty of a crime. But no, you're not being detained. If there is one line that discredits this entire article, that is it. I mean, why not just call it what it is? He was being detained, and given that there was some evidence (explosive readings) against him, then there was some probable cause to do so. I'm not saying the TSA is justified in that regard... only that the article is completely disingenuous by implying that he wasn't held against his will at the hands of law enforcement.

by ISL 13y ago

kyllo 13y ago

This is complete bullshit. "Limbo" is not a thing. Either you are being detained, or you are free to leave.

ars 13y ago
No, there's a third option: You will be free to leave after some defined event occurs.
- simonster 13y ago
  Does this "defined event" actually have any legal status? How long can it take until the defined event occurs? It's possible that this is an intentionally murky area of the law (i.e., a judge can decide that preventing a person from leaving for an hour in case X is okay but 1 minute in case Y is not). Even so, it seems like if there's a person in front of you with legal authority to let you out of a secured area and you are asking them to let you out, then either they have to let you out or you are being detained.
- arjie 13y ago
  That sounds precisely like 'detention'. For instance, people are detained pending trial. In fact, imprisonment is also being free to leave after some defined event occurs - namely the completion of sentence. This third option is exactly the first option.
- vidarh 13y ago
  In that case you are detained. Temporarily, but you are still detained.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  No. In that case you are detained until that event occurs, like the person showing up to escort you out, or someone posting bail, or the police handing you your ticket and saying you are free to leave.
unreal37 13y ago
If you're in an airport security section, you're not free to go wherever you like. He wanted to go to the back of the line. They said he could leave the airport. But his bag still needed to be searched. He was free to leave, but he didn't want to leave. He wanted to go catch his flight.
- prawn 13y ago
  He didn't want to let his laptop out of his sight. I'd behave the same way given how important my work/data is to me.
  - etchalon 13y ago
    Which is completely reasonable. But the fact their guidelines require his bag to be cleared before he could have it back does not mean he was "detained". There are some pretty goddamn good reasons why the bag of a dude who tests positive for explosives has to be cleared before he's given it and allowed to run around an airport full of people.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      > There are some pretty goddamn good reasons why the bag of a dude who tests positive for explosives has to be cleared before he's given it and allowed to run around an airport full of people. If so, there are some pretty good reason why, if they consider that threat even remotely real, they should clear the area. A good indication that the actual terrorist threat is absolutely vanishingly small: If there were lots of terrorists around, one of the easiest targets these days that'd maximize the amount of terror, is airport security screening areas. If they get through, they could defuse the bomb and blow it up on a plane instead, if not, they could let it go off on a timer and take out both a lot of passengers and a lot of security people.
      - etchalon 13y ago
        I don't know how much faith I'd put into your hypothetical. I'm not implying the terrorist threat is large – it's really, super small. But just because they haven't done THAT yet, doesn't mean they won't. So far, in the US, what they've done is sneak explosives onto planes.
etchalon 13y ago
"Free to leave" and "free to roam about the airport" are two vastly different things. He was free to leave the airport, if escorted, as the article states quite clearly.

MattyRad 13y ago

The police force is holding you against your will for the purpose of determining if you are guilty of a crime. But no, you're not being detained. If there is one line that discredits this entire article, that is it. I mean, why not just call it what it is? He was being detained, and given that there was some evidence (explosive readings) against him, then there was some probable cause to do so. I'm not saying the TSA is justified in that regard... only that the article is completely disingenuous by implying that he wasn't held against his will at the hands of law enforcement.