Lawsuit Phil Mocek

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by RB, Nov 28, 2011.

  1. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Seems that Phil has filed suit against those involved in his ABQ event. I don't have a PACER account. If anyone does and it is not against any rules can the case documents be posted here?

  2. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    The documents themselves are public, no issue with posting them once they are in your hands.

    Anyone can sign up for a PACER account. They don't bill until your usage exceeds a certain threshold ($10?)? I've used it in the past & never been billed.

    On the other hand, if you get the case name & just keep Googling it, someone else will probably put them up somewhere. I'm willing to make them available on TUG.
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach


    Mocek v. City of Albuquerque et al

    Share |​

    Plaintiff: Phillip Mocek​
    Defendants: City of Albuquerque, City of Albuquerque Aviation Police Department, Marshall Katz, Jonathon Breedon, Gerald Romero, Anthony Schreiner, Robert F Dilley, Landra Wiggins, Julio De La Pena and John/Jane 1-25 Does​

    Case Number: 1:2011cv01009​
    Filed: November 14, 2011​

    Court: New Mexico District Court​
    Office: Albuquerque Office​
    County: Bernalillo​

    Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights​
    Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights​
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question​
    Jury Demanded By:​

    Still digging ...​
  4. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Looks like having or creating a PACER account is the way to go.
  5. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Wow. How can he afford this?? He had $30,000 in legal fees from the last go-round.
  6. RB

    RB Founding Member

  7. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    What's interesting is that both the police officers and the screeners are being sued in their individual capacities as well as in their official capacitites.

    Bad cops don't care who they hurt and who pays for it. Their contracts usually require that their employers indemnify them against judgments, so there is no personal civil liability for their actions.

    Screeners have no such protections that I'm aware of.
  8. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I would be shocked if the TSA didn't cover any and all of this for screeners for anything they do on duty shy of garrotting a pax and being caught at it on video. No way they'll let a pax make a point like this. No way.
  9. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    They very well might -- federal employees can only be held liable as individuals for civil rights actions when the their actions exceeds the scope of their duties. Why would the federal government voluntarily indemnify someone who exceeds the scope of his/her duties and injures someone?

    The recent court action in the Aaron Tobey (message on chest) case has revolved around this very point: Higher ups were dismissed as respondents; the underlings are being set up take their well-deserved hit.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  10. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Interesting ... Albuquerque can't seem to get around to prosecuting teachers who rape their students (they claim the cases are being worked "diligently"), but they found the time to fall flat on their faces with their sham prosecution of Phil Mocek:

    Between TSA & the teachers, Albuquerque must be a great city for perverts.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  11. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    perhaps they moonlight as TSA clerks...

    It does make you wonder though: they had the resources to try Phil Mocek for using a camera legally in a public place, but don't have resources to try a teacher who had sex with a 13 year old student? This in a state where high school personnel sexually molested females at a high school dance "just like at the airport". sounds like a backward state to me...
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  12. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I'll bet on his attorney(s) working on contingency.

    In many cases like this, the city will simply roll over and settle out of court. It's cheaper for them, and avoids setting any precedents. Such a settlement usually results in a pittance for the claimant, a windfall for the attorney, and more debt for the municipality's taxpayers.
  13. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    Somehow I don't think Phil is going to settle.
    FriendlySkies likes this.
  14. DeafBlonde

    DeafBlonde Original Member

  15. Caradoc

    Caradoc Original Member

    I certainly hope not.
    FriendlySkies likes this.
  16. jtodd

    jtodd Original Member

    Is Phil's lawsuit still ongoing or has it even started?

    This may help his case some if it is still active.

    Justice Dept. defends public’s constitutional ‘right to record’ cops

    The DoJ sent a letter to the attorneys for the Baltimore Police Department.

    by Kim Zetter, - May 17 2012, 3:45pm CDT

    "As police departments around the country are increasingly caught up in tussles with members of the public who record their activities, the U.S. Justice Department has come out with a strong statement supporting the First Amendment right of individuals to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties.
    In a surprising letter (PDF) sent on Monday to attorneys for the Baltimore Police Department, the Justice Department also strongly asserted that officers who seize and destroy such recordings without a warrant or without due process are in strict violation of the individual’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
    The letter was sent to the police department as it prepares for meetings to discuss a settlement over a civil lawsuit brought by a citizen who sued the department after his camera was seized by police.
    In the lawsuit, Christopher Sharp alleged that in May 2010, Baltimore City police officers seized, searched, and deleted the contents of his mobile phone after he used it to record them as they were arresting a friend of his.
    Last year, the Baltimore Police Department published a General Order to officers explaining that members of the public have a right to record their activity in public, but the Justice Department said in its 11-page letter this week that the order didn’t go far enough and pointed out several areas where it should clarify and assert more strongly the rights that individuals possess.
    The right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties was essential to help "engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety," wrote Jonathan Smith, head of the Justice Department’s Special Litigation Section."
    Elizabeth Conley and nachtnebel like this.
  17. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Last I heard Mocek was moving forward on the case but was trying to limit discussion of the case.
  18. Papers, Please has an excellent and thorough post about the current state of Phillip Mocek v. Albuquerque et al.

  19. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    The immunity defense isn't likely to work here, especially not with regard to the police officer who illegally took his phone and tried to destroy evidence.
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  20. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

Share This Page