SoylentNews

janrinok [soylentnews.org] writes:

--- --- --- --- Entire Story Below - Must Be Edited --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story [techdirt.com]:

The “no-fly” list [techdirt.com] 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 [techdirt.com] (almost exclusively following lawsuits [techdirt.com]), 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 [documentcloud.org] [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 [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 [techdirt.com]! The FBI [techdirt.com] has been known to do this [techdirt.com]. A lot [techdirt.com]. 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.

Original Submission