SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The “no-fly” list has many problems. Pretty much any fed can “nominate” someone for the list. Pretty much everyone on the list has almost zero chance of getting off it other than by filing a lawsuit. And even though the government has been forced by court decisions to offer a venue for challenges, the federal government is still under no obligation to tell people why they’ve been placed on the list, much less promise to never put them back on it again.
When people have been removed (almost exclusively following lawsuits), they’re simply told they’ve been removed. The only way to find out if they’ve been reinstated is to buy a ticket to ride only to have it denied after they’ve already spent their money and arrived at the airport.
Then there’s the cross-pollination of federal law enforcement databases, which turns people on the “no fly” list into suspected terrorists, even if there’s nothing in the database that supports this implication or any cop’s corresponding inference.
As unjust as this all is, at least there are some limits. Well, maybe one. And maybe one that only applies to this specific incident. But, there’s at least one limit and it’s spelled out by this decision [PDF] handed down by the Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court. And that limitation is this: you can’t stop someone from driving just because they’re not allowed to board a plane. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)
Here’s how this all went down in Georgia, leading to this federal lawsuit:
First, they ignored direct instructions telling the officers not to detain the driver. Then they kept him detained for 91 minutes which, if nothing else, definitely violates the Supreme Court’s Rodriguez decision — the one that says officers cannot prolong traffic stops without the reasonable suspicion to do so.
The State Police officers didn’t have any of that. All they had was a “no fly” hit that came coupled with instructions stating that his mere presence on this list did not justify further detention. And none of that justified the warrantless search of his truck.
And, according to the allegations in the lawsuit, the only reason Meshal was on the FBI’s “no fly” list was because he had refused to become an FBI snitch.
Not exactly an improbable allegation! The FBI has been known to do this. A lot. Even if it feels it can’t justify a “no fly” list nomination, agents feel more than comfortable threatening people with deportation or further disruption of their travel plans. That a state officer would feel comfortable detaining someone in contravention of direct instructions otherwise makes it clear anyone the government merely wants to pretend is a terrorist is justification enough for any further violation of their rights.
At the district court level, all involved officers (Janufka, Oglesby, and Wright) were denied qualified immunity for this prolonged, suspicionless detention of Meshal, as well as for the completely unjustified search of his vehicle. They appealed. And the 11th Circuit says, too bad. Maybe don’t violate rights if you don’t like being sued.
The court first cites the Rodriguez decision in response to the officers’ arguments that the stop was not “unreasonably” prolonged. It also addresses their claim that detaining Meshal was necessary, even though the original stop was (allegedly) for him following another driver too closely.
As for the claim that it was the FBI’s fault the detention took 90 minutes due to officers waiting for a return call from the agency (after ignoring the agency’s direct instructions not to detain the driver), the court is even less sympathetic. An extended stop can’t be justified just because officers chose to involve an outside agency.
Driving the point home, the Appeals Court says all of this is stuff officers should know — so clearly established they can’t plausibly claim they weren’t “on notice” that detaining someone on a no fly list (much less searching his truck) for driving isn’t acceptable under the US Constitution.
The lawsuit will continue. And rights that were always present have been reaffirmed, something that’s going to help plenty of people who have been placed on the FBI’s “no fly” list (as this lawsuit alleges) for purely vindictive reasons. I would expect the state of Georgia to settle soon, rather than just wait around for more precedent curbing officer misconduct to be solidified.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @03:18AM (6 children)
Offtopic?
What, it's against the rules to directly respond to a specific comment here? Everything about the whole "no fly list" thing is fair game.
Oh, wait, I see, the remedy I recommended offended some partisan so-'n-so. I guess they think the no fly list is a good thing. The "no drive list" is just mission creep, which should be expected. This case is totally anecdotal, most of these injustices don't make the headlines. Soon to follow will be your "no leave the house list".
And reminding people that this will go on indefinitely while we reelect the same politicians over and over is definitely not "offtopic", unless nobody really wants the issue resolved, which, after 20 years and four presidents (in fully bipartisan fashion), appears to be the case.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @04:13PM (5 children)
More typical political partisan down modding... Well, obviously somebody doesn't like hearing the truth, and definitely not interested in making the feeblest effort to remedy the situation. Yeah, very offtopic
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 07 2024, @07:39PM (4 children)
very offtopic
The subject of injustice is verboten! Here we are permitted discuss only superficial details that resolve nothing. The big picture is very offtopic
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 08 2024, @09:41AM (3 children)
No, that is not true. You can discuss the topic in any way that you wish and express your personal views, which you have done. However, others can moderate you as they deem appropriate. I do not know why you received an 'Off-Topic' but perhaps it is because the discussion is about a specific police force and the trend of the last few comments has been to turn into (another!) political discussion and hint that it is a failure on the part of the President. I would have thought that the management of the Georgia police is, at most, a State matter and could even be resolved at a much lower level? The FBI are not involved at all in the abuse that is discussed in TFA. The moderation is, of course, speculative on my part and I do not know the detailed thoughts of the moderator.
On the other hand, those who agree with you are just as welcome to moderate you positively. Perhaps they will in the coming days. Not everyone reads every story every day and you may gather some positive moderations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 08 2024, @10:23PM (2 children)
And I am reminding people they don't see the forest for the trees. That is not offtopic. This discussion would not exist without the "no fly law" and the quite phony "War on Terror" being used as a legal pretext to harass people. The chronic injustices and resulting corruption permeate the entire system and go all the way up to the top. These local cops are mosquitoes in comparison, an inevitable result of corrupt law from above. Despite all your hopes, they will not get what they deserve, not in this life. Pointing that out is not offtopic either.
The down mod is simple case of somebody taking personal offense, or suffers from poor reading comprehension.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday October 08 2024, @11:14PM (1 child)
OK. Life is not perfect. You have been on the site long enough to have seen that before, haven't you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 09 2024, @02:02AM
Hmm, very dismissive.. Who said anything about perfection?