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
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.
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.
...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.
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.
The reason why they don't have arrest powers is because splitting up the particular duties involved in infringing liberties makes it impossible to pin it on anyone. The TSA can blame it on the locals, the locals can blame it on the TSA, and 9 times out of 10 they don't even need to find a patsy for a scapegoat.
(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.
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.
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.
No, legally, they are not. Any time you are in the presence of a law enforcement official and you are not free to leave, your person has been seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. From a Constitutional viewpoint, both arrest and "detainment" are a seizure of the person, and legally indistinguishable from an individual rights standpoint.
Second, how are the TSA agents stopping people from leaving until local PD arrives, if not by making arrests? The moment of arrest is "determined by whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe he was not free to leave. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)
There are stark legal differences between arrest and detention. TSA agents are authorized to detain, but not arrest, suspects. The bar for detention is lower, and detention may be performed by people other than sworn peace officers. Even private security officers - such as those at casinos in Nevada - are legally permitted to detain people for the purpose of notifying the police if they believe a felony has occurred on the property. NRS 171.1235
By contrast, an arrest may only be performed by a peace officer with probable cause to believe a crime has occurred. Detained suspects do not have to have their rights read to them, whereas they must be read to arrested individuals. Detained suspects are either arrested or released usually within hours, as was the case here.
Detention and arrest are vastly different things, both legally and practically, that are used for different purposes. The system worked here: he walked into an airport displaying many red flags. He was detained for a few hours, determined not to be a threat, and was released.
What were the many red flags? It looks to me like there was at most one: the flash cards. (And IMO zero, because the idea that having "bomb" written on a piece of paper makes someone suspicious is ludicrous.)
#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.
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.
> 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.
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!
> 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.
Society's job is to spot outliers and oddities and protect and support them from thoughtless bullying and cruelty; TSA's job is to support that by preventing violence in transportation.
> At least 10 were bizarre words that would get you arrested if you handed to a bank teller.
Come on. Half of these are basic vocabulary and the other half are contextually relevant. Grab a random newspaper; you'll likely find 90% of them somewhere.
"Contextually relevant!" That's a good one. :-) I took several years of [French] foreign language, never did I ever learn those vocab words. What a world we live in.
"Ou est les toilettes?"
"Un pain au chocolat et un cafe s'il vous plait."
...
"Est-ce une bombe dans votre sac à dos?"
It's a fantastic Onion-worthy title, but IMO Nick was inconvenienced for his lack of critical thinking skills on this one.
By comparison, a Brooklyn man gets $75k for being dragged out of his car and choked. [1]
It's true on a global scale, not just in the Arabic context. As you immerse yourself in a language, you're encouraged to follow newspapers/articles/tv/shows/etc. It is entirely unreasonable to censor your own learning process. Take this unfortunately common headline:
Death toll of Yemen anti-Houthi bomb blast rises to 49.[1]
Now censor your knowledge:
[? ?] of Yemen anti-Houthi [? ?] rises to 49.
Also, aren't we overlooking the fact that the TSA isn't the NSA/DHS? Did they guy have any things that could endanger the flight and his fellow passengers? Indisputably NOT. How is arresting him because of "suspicious literature" (a) acceptable and (b) within their jurisdiction? Report him to the NSA/DHS as an Arabic learner, if you like, and have them add it to his file, but arresting him? Isn't their job to make sure that he isn't sneaking [explodey things] onto airplanes?
To make a broader point: this is exactly what Schneier means by "security theater". If someone is a genuine threat, you can bet your ass he won't be carrying "suspicious" flashcards in airports. As they'd need to avoid suspicion/detention at all costs, every piece of their luggage/carryon would be scrutinized before they even got to the airport.
This hostility and pre-emptive guilt serves nothing except for ticking boxes in procedure reports and power trips.
In an era of relatively perfunctory airport security, Mohammed Atta's hand luggage (which was held up after being checked on a connecting flight) reportedly contained a letter outlining, in the abstract terms, what he was to do, his will, a flick knife and details on operating and navigating a Boeing 757...
The question is whether they'll make this mistake more frequently than innocent people will do this same thing. If it's not more frequent among criminals then it's not useful.
From the article: "Travelling by plane can be a long and grueling process under the best of circumstances. This makes it a good time for monotonous tasks, like trying to iron out some vocab for a language you're learning at college."
In other words: the flash cards are most useful to him in his carry-on so he can study while waiting for/during his flight. Putting them in his checked baggage (assuming he even checked a bag) would defeat the purpose.
Absurd. You could carry a language textbook in the carry-on baggage and use that. All these arguments depend on the (false) premise that one is helpless to do anything else in these circumstances, and that the inability to do this one particular thing on the flight is going to wreck your life. It's self-serving bullshit.
I don't care much for the TSA, but the fact is that an organization like that is always going to prioritize collective safety over the convenience of the individual. Thus, if you're a chemistry student, your might want to consider studying something other than explosive reactions on your next flight. If you're an engineering student you might want to consider studying something other than structural deficiencies in airframe design during your next flight. If you're a psychology student, you might want to consider studying something other than Stockholm syndrome and the interpersonal dynamics of hostage situations during your next flight.
The sad fact is that some people are inclined to jump to the worst possible conclusion and if the security screeners don't pick up on it, an overly imaginative/paranoid fellow passenger may do so and alert cabin staff to their suspicions, however ill-founded. People who are going to be crammed into a plane for hours on end, many of whom are nervous about flying to begin with, are simply not at their best, and if you're going to be sitting in close quarters with a bunch of strangers then maybe you should ask yourself 'would this weird people out?' in the interest of minimizing the potential hassle to yourself.
Case in point: I have a large reinforced equipment case that I often use on film shoots. It has huge bright yellow-and-block 'nuclear radiation' symbols on the main side panels. It's small enough to carry, large enough to carry my most important gear, and the striking graphics mean that a) it never gets lost/forgotten/mixed up with anything else when equipment is being moved around or loaded into trucks and b) anyone who doesn't know what it is leaves it the fuck alone, so I don't have to have eyes on it every second on the day on a busy film set where I have many other things to do. I've had it for years, I can pack and unpack it in the dark, and it's paid for itself many times over. I would go so far as to say it's part of my 'personal brand' - people remember from different jobs when they see the suitcase, it's a funny little icebreaker when I work with people the first time and so on.
Do I use it to transport my gear when I have to fly somewhere? No, because I'm not an idiot. When I need to fly I repack my stuff into a boring and rather inferior black ABS Pelican case, because a bright yellow box with radioactivity symbols on it is liable to give people the wrong impression. I'm OK with taking it on a train or something - I've had police officers ask me about it a few times but I'm always happy to open it and explain what is is, and it's never separated from me the way checked airline baggage is, so there's little potential for confusion. Under the first amendment I certainly have a right to use the sort of luggage I wan, and I know that there's no nefarious purpose or intent to disturb anyone when I carry the thing around. But I also realize that there's a potential for people to get the wrong impression if they encounter it in a different context, and that having people form the wrong impression in an airport would result in significant inconvenience, not least to myself. Accommodating the slightly irrational anxieties of people by leaving my 'radioactive' gear case at home is such a trivially small (and voluntary) abridgement of my rights to self-expression as to not matter. Life is too short for me to waste it sitting around trying to win arguments with security guards over my right to engage in attention-seeking display.
Nobody's suggesting that it should be a crime to trigger a metal detector whilst trying to board a flight with a checklist of words related to terrorism in one pocket and a book apparently accusing the US of being a "Rogue Nation" as further light reading material. They are suggesting it might be a sufficiently unusual set of circumstances to warrant waiting for a competent investigator to give the all clear.
As entirely explicable as his actions might have been, this guy did an awful lot more to inadvertently provoke suspicion than the several people per day detained for questioning for being in a particular area at a particular time, and possibly even the same colour as the perpetrator. A few of them undoubtedly suffer the inconvenience of missed flights and public embarrassment too, and/or encounter more objectionable behaviour from law enforcement than a overuse of handcuffs and amateurish-sounding line of questioning.
The actions of the police bear explaining, however, regardless of how suspicious they though the actions of the traveler were. IANAL, but as I understand it, if police handcuff him, he was being arrested, which means the police failed to read him his Miranda Rights and to charge him with any crime. If this is so, isn't that either a crime on the part of the police themselves or at the very least a serious administrative violation? The alternative is that he was being detained for questioning, but is it really usual or accepted to detain someone for a long a period of time and handcuff them for questioning? (seems 20 minutes is considered already fairly long for this sort of detention: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_... , though I can't verify the source ). The question here is under which law or authority can someone be hand-cuffed and deprived of their freedom - however briefly - just for having a bunch of cards with words and a book.
I mean, I am not kidding myself, the "threat of terrorism" has been used to justify far worse abuses, up to and including torture and extra-judicial prisons. But expected or not, this should be morally and legally indefensible.
Also, at a personal level, it makes me think that, should I decide to travel any time soon, my reference papers for work in computer systems' security, the book I am reading on the NSA/Snowden material and my textbook on introductory Chinese should all stay back home. Because "that sure looks like some suspicious literature right there, doesn't it?"
There were 80 cards total. At least 10 were bizarre words that would get you arrested if you handed to a bank teller.
Lucky he hadn't handed them a dictionary then. That has all the bad words.
By the way, given you seem to agree with the TSA that it is suspicious for a traveler to be learning certain words, how would you plan on reading the news in a foreign language without learning words like bomb and kidnap?
What I actually think is that the blog post left out some key details and slightly altered the "money quote" to make the story appear much more ridiculous than it really was. In reality after considering the totality of the evidence, this was a bizarre case which is way above the pay grade of the average TSA agent. They perform the smell test and this one reasonably doesn't pass.
To the point of another poster re "security theater" terrorists don't come with name cards. TSA is not supposed to just check you're not carrying any liquids. The agents need to be able to question people who trigger that gut feeling. The questioning should be professional, respectful, but curt and effective.
A guy going through airport security, recently in the middle east, not familiar with key aspects airport protocol (take out electronics, empty pockets), carrying cards with those words. Yeah, talk to him for a few minutes. I'd rather that than spending their time patting down kids and grannies.
Ideally get him through the full eval without even missing the flight. Don't handcuff a non-violent suspect, etc. The process here was imperfect but simply not as insane as the blog post made it out to be.
I, for one, am glad you took the time and put some more context to this whole situation. And frankly, I can't understand how anyone could argue with you right now, as it seems there is no disagreement. You merely pointed out other variables that the blog post didn't cover.
As for myself, I'd much rather support someone who provides all facts than conveniently leaves out stuff that could damage his cause.
What happened to him was bad and this extra details would not have made much of a difference. By leaving them out he gave them far more importance than they would have been before…
If one's goal in learning Arabic were to become an intelligence agent at the NSA, CIA,... (which are probably the largest employers of Arabic translators in the US) wouldn't this be the natural choice of vocabulary to be studying?
You are blaming the victim for having his rights violated. Thinking, "of course he shouldn't have had a flash card with the word 'bomb' on it, if you do that you'll have your rights violated" is blaming the wrong party, while accepting an unjust status quo.
There are certain things which will flag you for enhanced screening at airport security. Not following directions, for example. Nick didn't remove electronics from his carry-on which is what initially got him singled out ("behind the glass partition"). This happens all the time, completely mundane. Then during that screening they found his pockets were stuffed with paper with indistinguishable Arabic writing and English words like bomb, kidnap, etc.
So now Nick has failed to follow all the basic instructions (empty pockets, electronics out) and he's got a pocket full of What The Fuck.
If Nick pays any attention in the security line that day and follows simple instructions none of this happens.
As usual, his rights were not violated until the police showed up. Only at that moment do I concede anything wrong happened.
If you think about it, either TSA is a glorified toiletry inspector, or they are trying to use their brains to deduce who should be screened more thoroughly. If we ask them to use their brains, and given as a society we don't want our Elon Musks of the world as TSA agents, you tell these agents to look for certain flags and then tell them they must call for help. That's exactly what Jane Doe TSA agent did. Kudos to her for actually trying to make it more than security theater.
Make no mistake, when the agent calls for help assessing a cooperative passenger, the $25k cringeworthy thing to do is handcuff them and drag them away to sit in a cell for a few hours until help arrives.
We've all heard the stories of the guy who says sarcastically to TSA "well its not like I have a BOMB or anything?!" I see this similar to that.
It's not even "put the cards in checked bags" it's simply follow instructions to get through security, empty your pockets and put the cards into you carry-on.
His rights were violated. Just as everyone else's is, the second TSA searched him. TSA continued to violate his rights by searching him further, then threatened him. They also claimed he was terrorist and asked the police to arrest him.
Nothing justifies the illegal detention. People aren't saying that it was right for him to be illegally held. What they are saying is that he was not arrested for "learning Arabic", but for handing cards with the English words "bomb", "terrorist" etc to security screeners, who called the police who then illegally arrested him.
That's a different story to the one presented. It's still an unjustifiable arrest; he still deserves his compensation and the police must learn the lesson.
But why did the ACLU not mention the content of the flashcards?
Edit: I supplied a corrective upvote. I don't know why your reasonable question was downvoted.
>But why did the ACLU not mention the content of the flashcards?
Because:
>Nothing justifies the illegal detention
So the content of the flash cards is not relevant, but instead an attempt to justify his detention, to make the reader think the TSA made an honest mistake when, in fact, what they did was not an honest mistake.
The court documents claim that TSA arrest / detention was reasonable and he got his payout for the police arrest / detention. The documents state clearly that the TSA action was reasonable because of the content of the cards.
This headline - "I was arrested for learning Arabic" is almost dishonest.
EDIT: as I have said elsewhere in this thread I think that he should not have been arrested. I'm not agreeing with the way he was treated. This post is just stating what the court documents say, as I understand them.
> 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.
They are just words, it is not OK to "flag" anyone for carrying that around. Next thing you know we'll be "flagged" for reading Rousseau (whose works were a major influence on Robespierre, a renown "terrorist") or Karl Marx, a guy whose works were appropriated by a lot of bad guys who killed a lot of people in the 20th century.
There can be nothing redeeiming about a philosophy that does not treat individuals as ends in themselves.
Such a philosophy will always lead to people and their lives/property being sacrified for "the common good," which means: for everybody and nobody.
Sure, there are different permutations of Marxism. Stalin and Mao may not have done it the way Marx would advocate, but it's still a permutation of Marxism. We see a different permutation of it in Britain and gaining ground in the US. We also saw it on Pol Pot's killing fields. I am not talking about Marxism as a specific political position; I am talking about Marxism as an underlying philosophy.
Finally, some one with additional details I was waiting to hear. If they hauled everyone learning Arabic off the false positive rate should be sky high. I wonder, just wonder, if this person was an "activist". You know, someone who tries to go positive on sufficient features of the detector to pass the threshold.
> if this person was an "activist". You know, someone who tries to go positive on sufficient features of the detector to pass the threshold.
This is a perfectly reasonable smoke test for civil liberties and there's no shame, crime, or dishonor in running it.
For those wondering more about this type of action, I suggest a study of the works of Ben Masel of Madison, Wisconsin, who passed away a few years ago. He was arguably a master.
> I wonder, just wonder, if this person was an "activist".
It's highly unlikely, since he had already studied Arabic at university and studied in Jordan. He clearly has a genuine interest in the language, including wanting to learn to read newspapers (which unfortunately feature words like "terrorists" and "kidnapping" in addition to the more mundane cards in his possession).
The false-positive rate is already sky high because the probability of any given person being a terrorist is extremely low, and because of Bayes' theorem that makes profiling generate a lot of false positives.
The details were not part of the reporting and it seems like many HN readers were not aware of the details until the links to the court document were posted.
What happened to him is clearly not acceptable, but the story is not "Learning Arabic got me arrested" but "handing a list of words including 'bomb' and 'terrorist' to a security screener got me arrested".
I'm not sure the Arabic is relevant - I suspect the NSA screener could not read the Arabic and could only read the English portion of the flashcards, and that he would have had similar results if the cards were in English and French.
They screen Arabs every day. They screen people who speak Arabic every day. Why haven't we heard about the illegal arrest of any of those people? Because those people don't use the English words "bomb" or "terrorist" or "murder" in front of security screeners.
I'm sure you'll find many other examples. They mostly don't get arrested, but they certainly suffer unjustifiable abuse. And keep in mind that the TSA can't arrest people, only hand them over to the local police.
Thank God Nick didn't bring a dictionary. If he did, he would most likely not only be detained in a small jail for several hours, but probably sent to a secret underground torture chamber to be water-boarded. After all, he must obviously be planning a massive-scale nuclear / chemical attack on the United States as "after looking through the thick tome, dangerous words like 'chemical', 'nuclear', 'oil', 'president', and 'United States' were all found listed therein."
Speaking of which, Merriam Webster confirmed for top international terrorist propaganda organization
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