10 ms·

Summary of Agreement (not judgement): 1. Plaintiff received $25K (directed to ACLU legal and subject to tax) 2. Philadelphia PD must communicate the following

Summary of Agreement (not judgement): 1. Plaintiff received $25K (directed to ACLU legal and subject to tax) 2. Philadelphia PD must communicate the following for a period of months: "Investigative detentions may be made only on reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct and any arrest must be based on probable cause. A referral by TSA agents is not grounds for arrest unless an officer makes a judgment ofprobable cause; similarly, referral by TSA agents is not grounds for detention unless an officer makes a judgment that there is reasonable suspicion ofcriminal conduct. Any detentions or arrests should be documented on appropriate police paperwork consistent with PPD Directives." 3. No admission of wrong doing or error on anyone's behalf

pmorici 12y ago
Seems like a lame outcome. If there is no admission or finding of wrong doing it really feels like there was no accountability whatsoever. The $25k is a rounding error and looks more like a token payment than anything else. They don't even have to make that paragraph part of their permanent police training. edit: How did they manage to drag this out for 5 years and still not have an actual judge or jury rule on this.
- afiedler 12y ago
  (Disclaimer: IANAL) Reading through the history of the case[1], it looks like the District Court ruled that the Federal TSA officers involved were entitled to qualified immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The reasoning was that the TSA followed appropriated procedures and wasn't responsible for the longer (few hour) detention by the Philly Police. In my opinion, that seems reasonable. The TSA only detained him for 15-30 mins to question him about the cards, then turned him over the the state police. After that ruling, the parties settled. I'm not sure why the case wasn't pursued further against the Philly Police. It could be that the case wasn't likely to succeed under Pennsylvania law, or maybe the ACLU wasn't interested in continuing to pursue it, since a Pennsylvania precedent wouldn't be a "worthwhile" expenditure of ACLU resources. [1]: https://www.aclu.org/national-security/george-v-tsa https://www.aclu.org/national-security/george-v-tsa
  - njpg 12y ago
    (IANAL) The thing is the ACLU only has leverage against the Federal gov't if they pursue a settlement - the federal gov't doesn't want to see the agents deposed. Even if they have immunity, it'd make them look bad. If this went to trial, that leverage would be gone. So, the settlement deal gets them point 2 on that list, instead of just (potentially more) money.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    ...the TSA... wasn't responsible for the longer (few hour) detention by the Philly Police. This rings true to me. The TSA in general does not want people in custody. They know themselves that most of what they do is bullshit, so what would be the point? When I was delayed by TSA, they were eager to turn me over to LVPD, who, after a short conversation about the best way to deal with TSA bureaucracy and escape with minimal fines, told me, "if you run you can still catch your plane". Which I did. Author of TFA had the misfortune to deal with local police just as stupid as TSA, but without the built-in CYA aversion to arrests.
    - lisper 12y ago
      Minimal fines??? Why would you need to pay any fines?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - fixermark 12y ago
        Because nobody gets out of Vegas with all the money they came in with. ;)
    - jmccree 12y ago
      The TSA "officers" do not have arrest power and are forbidden by policy from using force (to perhaps perform a citizens arrest if allowed in state for a state law violation), so they really don't have the ability to take anyone into "custody", hence calling for local police.
- downandout 12y ago
  If there is no admission or finding of wrong doing it really feels like there was no accountability whatsoever. Accountability for what, exactly? He wasn't arrested. He was detained. Police have wide latitude to detain people that are suspicious. I think any objective human being would say that a second look at him was warranted with those items in his bag. Whether he meant to or not, he pretty closely matched the profile of a radicalized US citizen. BTW, the title of this article isn't even accurate - he wasn't arrested - but then I guess "I was detained for a few hours because I raised several red flags at the airport" probably wouldn't make it to the front page of HN.
  - travem 12y ago
    Being put in handcuffs and kept in a cell for several hours is not the same as being detained at a traffic stop to answer a few questions. And no, I don't think most objective human beings want to live in a police state where carrying arabic flash cards and a perfectly legal book is sufficient cause to be inconvenienced by the state in such a manner.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
        The 9/11 hijackers had flash cards with them?
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - downandout 12y ago
      Legally, he was detained. He wasn't arrested. Those are two very different things.
      - s_q_b 12y ago
zaroth 12y ago
Other notable facts: recent travel to middle east, flash cards included words like "terrorist", "explosion", "bomb", "to kidnap", etc., didn't follow basic screening process guaranteeing an elevated inspection (left large electronics in bag), had the cards in his pocket and handed directly to the TSA agent. As soon as someone arrived who had the necessary pay-grade to release this guy, he was released. Sorry for missing your flight but I do expect TSA to flag me if I literally hand the agent a stack of cards with "bomb" and "terrorist" written on them. It never occurred to Nick to put the cards away before going through security screening? Oblivious beyond belief.
- yourad_io 12y ago
  Any source for these notable facts? > It never occurred to Nick to put the cards away before going through security screening? Oblivious beyond belief. Obnoxious beyond belief. You're saying "he should know better and hide the perfectly legal thing that he was doing". In the same line of thought, if you're learning Arabic online without going through Tor, you're asking for it. Right? EDIT: Found the source[1]. The full context is: > The flashcards included every day words and phrases such as “day before yesterday,” “fat,” “thin,” “really,” “nice,” “sad,” “cheap,” “summer,” “pink,” and “friendly.” However, they also contained such words as: “bomb,” “terrorist,” “explosion,” “attack,” “battle,” “kill,” “to target,” “to kidnap,” and “to wound.” Doesn't sound like he handed the TSA agent 10 suspicious flashcards, which is the point you're making, but rather that these words are as relevant in a Middle-Eastern context as they are in an English context. So, this guy is guilty of not censoring his flashcards pre-emptively. Yes, I see your PoV now. [1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/george-v-rehiel_3rd_cir_qi_ruling.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/george-v-reh...
  - zaroth 12y ago
    Well, at least I think it's relevant to understand the full context of what happened. Remember, TSA's job is to spot outliers, oddities, and flag them for review. I have zero love for TSA, but I think they did their job here. There were 80 cards total. At least 10 were bizarre words that would get you arrested if you handed to a bank teller. Guilty of not censoring? No you missed my point entirely. I am suggesting that handing these cards directly to a TSA agent will get you red flagged. Does that really surprise you? Basically Nick did everything possible to be the absolutely weirdest guy TSA saw that month. If they don't flag this, what do they flag? Even the alleged line of questioning by the TSA officer isn't even necessarily that bad depending on how you imagine it; Agent: "You know who did 9/11?" Nick: "Osama bin Laden." Agent: "Do you know what language he spoke?" Nick: "Arabic." [Agent: rifling through flash cards saying "Bomb", "Terrorist", "To Kidnap", incredulous look on her face... Shrugs looking a Nick] Agent: "Do you see why these cards are suspicious?!" Note the last sentence in the court documents does not start with "So". Anyway, no one in the entire case was arguing that TSA did anything wrong, just the police detention that followed. Edit: Look, it's a really great headline, and just reading the ACLU post initially got my blood boiling. Then I read the first few pages of court documents and my opinion moderated quite a bit. So I thought the discussion would benefit from a more complete airing of the facts. Sorry if it doesn't fit the narrative!
click170 12y ago
#3 is what really bothers me, and seems inexcusable. I get it, liability is a bitch. But that's not a reason to refuse to admit guilt, that's the reason you shouldn't do the deed in the f*^king first place. How are we going to grow and advance as a society when we can't even admit wrong-doing when there is sufficient evidence of a cockup? It's like trying to argue with Creationists. I take responsibility for the mistakes I make, and I think a LOT less of people who do not.

pmorici 12y ago

Seems like a lame outcome. If there is no admission or finding of wrong doing it really feels like there was no accountability whatsoever. The $25k is a rounding error and looks more like a token payment than anything else. They don't even have to make that paragraph part of their permanent police training. edit: How did they manage to drag this out for 5 years and still not have an actual judge or jury rule on this.

afiedler 12y ago
(Disclaimer: IANAL) Reading through the history of the case[1], it looks like the District Court ruled that the Federal TSA officers involved were entitled to qualified immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The reasoning was that the TSA followed appropriated procedures and wasn't responsible for the longer (few hour) detention by the Philly Police. In my opinion, that seems reasonable. The TSA only detained him for 15-30 mins to question him about the cards, then turned him over the the state police. After that ruling, the parties settled. I'm not sure why the case wasn't pursued further against the Philly Police. It could be that the case wasn't likely to succeed under Pennsylvania law, or maybe the ACLU wasn't interested in continuing to pursue it, since a Pennsylvania precedent wouldn't be a "worthwhile" expenditure of ACLU resources. [1]: https://www.aclu.org/national-security/george-v-tsa https://www.aclu.org/national-security/george-v-tsa
- njpg 12y ago
  (IANAL) The thing is the ACLU only has leverage against the Federal gov't if they pursue a settlement - the federal gov't doesn't want to see the agents deposed. Even if they have immunity, it'd make them look bad. If this went to trial, that leverage would be gone. So, the settlement deal gets them point 2 on that list, instead of just (potentially more) money.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  ...the TSA... wasn't responsible for the longer (few hour) detention by the Philly Police. This rings true to me. The TSA in general does not want people in custody. They know themselves that most of what they do is bullshit, so what would be the point? When I was delayed by TSA, they were eager to turn me over to LVPD, who, after a short conversation about the best way to deal with TSA bureaucracy and escape with minimal fines, told me, "if you run you can still catch your plane". Which I did. Author of TFA had the misfortune to deal with local police just as stupid as TSA, but without the built-in CYA aversion to arrests.
  - lisper 12y ago
    Minimal fines??? Why would you need to pay any fines?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - fixermark 12y ago
      Because nobody gets out of Vegas with all the money they came in with. ;)
  - jmccree 12y ago
    The TSA "officers" do not have arrest power and are forbidden by policy from using force (to perhaps perform a citizens arrest if allowed in state for a state law violation), so they really don't have the ability to take anyone into "custody", hence calling for local police.
downandout 12y ago
If there is no admission or finding of wrong doing it really feels like there was no accountability whatsoever. Accountability for what, exactly? He wasn't arrested. He was detained. Police have wide latitude to detain people that are suspicious. I think any objective human being would say that a second look at him was warranted with those items in his bag. Whether he meant to or not, he pretty closely matched the profile of a radicalized US citizen. BTW, the title of this article isn't even accurate - he wasn't arrested - but then I guess "I was detained for a few hours because I raised several red flags at the airport" probably wouldn't make it to the front page of HN.
- travem 12y ago
  Being put in handcuffs and kept in a cell for several hours is not the same as being detained at a traffic stop to answer a few questions. And no, I don't think most objective human beings want to live in a police state where carrying arabic flash cards and a perfectly legal book is sufficient cause to be inconvenienced by the state in such a manner.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - ZanyProgrammer 12y ago
      The 9/11 hijackers had flash cards with them?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - downandout 12y ago
    Legally, he was detained. He wasn't arrested. Those are two very different things.
    - s_q_b 12y ago

zaroth 12y ago

Other notable facts: recent travel to middle east, flash cards included words like "terrorist", "explosion", "bomb", "to kidnap", etc., didn't follow basic screening process guaranteeing an elevated inspection (left large electronics in bag), had the cards in his pocket and handed directly to the TSA agent. As soon as someone arrived who had the necessary pay-grade to release this guy, he was released. Sorry for missing your flight but I do expect TSA to flag me if I literally hand the agent a stack of cards with "bomb" and "terrorist" written on them. It never occurred to Nick to put the cards away before going through security screening? Oblivious beyond belief.

yourad_io 12y ago
Any source for these notable facts? > It never occurred to Nick to put the cards away before going through security screening? Oblivious beyond belief. Obnoxious beyond belief. You're saying "he should know better and hide the perfectly legal thing that he was doing". In the same line of thought, if you're learning Arabic online without going through Tor, you're asking for it. Right? EDIT: Found the source[1]. The full context is: > The flashcards included every day words and phrases such as “day before yesterday,” “fat,” “thin,” “really,” “nice,” “sad,” “cheap,” “summer,” “pink,” and “friendly.” However, they also contained such words as: “bomb,” “terrorist,” “explosion,” “attack,” “battle,” “kill,” “to target,” “to kidnap,” and “to wound.” Doesn't sound like he handed the TSA agent 10 suspicious flashcards, which is the point you're making, but rather that these words are as relevant in a Middle-Eastern context as they are in an English context. So, this guy is guilty of not censoring his flashcards pre-emptively. Yes, I see your PoV now. [1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/george-v-rehiel_3rd_cir_qi_ruling.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/george-v-reh...
- zaroth 12y ago
  Well, at least I think it's relevant to understand the full context of what happened. Remember, TSA's job is to spot outliers, oddities, and flag them for review. I have zero love for TSA, but I think they did their job here. There were 80 cards total. At least 10 were bizarre words that would get you arrested if you handed to a bank teller. Guilty of not censoring? No you missed my point entirely. I am suggesting that handing these cards directly to a TSA agent will get you red flagged. Does that really surprise you? Basically Nick did everything possible to be the absolutely weirdest guy TSA saw that month. If they don't flag this, what do they flag? Even the alleged line of questioning by the TSA officer isn't even necessarily that bad depending on how you imagine it; Agent: "You know who did 9/11?" Nick: "Osama bin Laden." Agent: "Do you know what language he spoke?" Nick: "Arabic." [Agent: rifling through flash cards saying "Bomb", "Terrorist", "To Kidnap", incredulous look on her face... Shrugs looking a Nick] Agent: "Do you see why these cards are suspicious?!" Note the last sentence in the court documents does not start with "So". Anyway, no one in the entire case was arguing that TSA did anything wrong, just the police detention that followed. Edit: Look, it's a really great headline, and just reading the ACLU post initially got my blood boiling. Then I read the first few pages of court documents and my opinion moderated quite a bit. So I thought the discussion would benefit from a more complete airing of the facts. Sorry if it doesn't fit the narrative!

click170 12y ago

#3 is what really bothers me, and seems inexcusable. I get it, liability is a bitch. But that's not a reason to refuse to admit guilt, that's the reason you shouldn't do the deed in the f*^king first place. How are we going to grow and advance as a society when we can't even admit wrong-doing when there is sufficient evidence of a cockup? It's like trying to argue with Creationists. I take responsibility for the mistakes I make, and I think a LOT less of people who do not.